I've seen references to Piaget's Genetic Epistemology for years, and though a copy was on my shelves never cracked it open. My vague impression was that it was about child development, odd given the title, but that's how it was characterized most often.

It is that, primarily in the sense that data from clinical experiments involving the perceptions and statements of children are used to explore concepts such as space & time, logical concepts, and language. These data are in themselves fascinating to read: how, for example, children under 7 will see 2 dolls enter separate tunnels at the same time, and emerge at the same time, and conclude with confidence that they traveled at the same speed ... despite conceding readily that one tunnel is significantly longer than the other. And then, the same children will watch the same spectacle but without tunnels, thereby observing one doll overtake the other, and insist that the one is necessarily faster than the other -- and will maintain this, even when reminded (and agreeing with) earlier statement about the two dolls going the same speed. These sorts of observations of the innate logic of children, and how they reinforce or undermine notions held as adults, make fascinating reading.

But this is the raw data for Piaget, not the argument. His argument makes the data that much more significant, and the text worth revisiting, claiming that epistemology unavoidably addresses the ways psychology plays a role in knowledge, and that knowledge involves necessarily the construction of new relationships, rather than their mere 'discovery' as empiricists or nativists maintain.

The chapters are brief and read like a lecture, which indeed they are based upon. A wonderful introduction, remains to be seen how these arguments hold up to my continued reflection, as well as to critique by others (now that I've read Piaget and could benefit from secondary source commentary). ( )