Abstract
This commentary on Needham's (2001, this issue) work focuses on the types of evidence needed to make inferences concerning infant cognition. It is helpful to consider the history of the positions that have been held by scientists who have tried to explain the cognitive abilities of animals, deemed to be so very different from adult humans, and in that regard, similar to infants. The justification of inference is not a matter of personal taste or the application of a rigid doctrine. Rather, the study of infant cognition requires a high level of creativity in the creation and testing of alternative explanations. By understanding lessons from our past, current researchers should be better able to conduct their studies and draw appropriate conclusions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
