There is considerable evidence for innate knowledge furnished by psychology & linguistics, yet widespread disbelief amongst philosophers in particular that there is any such thing. Empirical and conceptual arguments given in support of this scepticism are considered here and rejected.

This volume presents a rich diversity of views from researchers in cognitive science and associated disciplines - archaeology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology - on the nature, function and evolution of "mental" or "cognitive" states. A quick glance at the titles of the contributions and/or the disciplinary backgrounds of the contributors might lead one to suspect little commonality in theoretical interests. However, this would be a mistake. Although the contributions differ markedly in approach and methodology, common questions about mind and cognition unite them.

The plausibility of Naturalism - the view that the mind is a purely natural phenomenon that can be explained scientifically (if explained at all) - is a hotly contested topic in cognitive science, as every philosopher and cognitive scientist knows. It is not widely recognised, however that some of the more popular arguments against naturalism rest upon anti-realist metaphysical assumptions. This is a problem since the most plausible defences of naturalism presuppose a realist metaphysics. In this chapter, I shall chart one of these anti-realist assumptions and show how it features as a crucial premise in a leading anti-naturalist argument, the Knowledge Argument.