Related categories
Siblings:History/traditions: Natural Kinds
341 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 341
  1. Barbara Abbott (1999). Water =H 2 O. Mind 108 (429):145--8.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Barbara Abbott (1997). A Note on the Nature of "Water". Mind 106 (422):311-319.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Barbara Abbott (1989). Nondescriptionality and Natural Kind Terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (3):269 - 291.
    The phrase "natural kind term" has come into the linguistic and philosophical literature in connection with well-known work of Kripke (1972) and Pulrmm (1970, 1975a). I use that phrase here in the sense it has acquired from those and subseqnent works on related topics. This is not the transparent sense of the phrase. That is, if I am right in what follows there are words for kinds of things existing in nature which are not natural kind terms in the current (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Mortimer J. Adler (1952). The Hierarchy of Essences. Review of Metaphysics 6 (1):3 - 30.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Erik Anderson (1994). Kant, Natural Kind Terms, and Scientific Essentialism. History of Philosophy Quarterly 11 (4):355 - 373.
  6. Leandro Assis & Ingo Brigandt (2009). Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution. Evolutionary Biology 36:248-255.
    Taxa and homologues can in our view be construed both as kinds and as individuals. However, the conceptualization of taxa as natural kinds in the sense of homeostatic property cluster kinds has been criticized by some systematists, as it seems that even such kinds cannot evolve due to their being homeostatic. We reply by arguing that the treatment of transformational and taxic homologies, respectively, as dynamic and static aspects of the same homeostatic property cluster kind represents a good perspective for (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Scott Atran (1987). Ordinary Constraints on the Semantics of Living Kinds: A Commonsense Alternative to Recent Treatments of Natural-Object Terms. Mind and Language 2 (1):27-63.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Michael R. Ayers (1981). Locke Versus Aristotle on Natural Kinds. Journal of Philosophy 78 (5):247-272.
  9. Theodore Bach (2012). Gender Is a Natural Kind with a Historical Essence. Ethics 122 (2):231-272.
    Traditional debate on the metaphysics of gender has been a contrast of essentialist and social-constructionist positions. The standard reaction to this opposition is that neither position alone has the theoretical resources required to satisfy an equitable politics. This has caused a number of theorists to suggest ways in which gender is unified on the basis of social rather than biological characteristics but is “real” or “objective” nonetheless – a position I term social objectivism. This essay begins by making explicit the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. H. Clark Barrett (2001). On the Functional Origins of Essentialism. [Journal (Paginated)] (in Press) 2 (1):1-30.
    This essay examines the proposal that psychological essentialism results from a history of natural selection acting on human representation and inference systems. It has been argued that the features that distinguish essentialist representational systems are especially well suited for representing natural kinds. If the evolved function of essentialism is to exploit the rich inductive potential of such kinds, then it must be subserved by cognitive mechanisms that carry out at least three distinct functions: identifying these kinds in the environment, constructing (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Jordan Bartol (forthcoming). Biochemical Kinds. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axu046.
    Chemical kinds (e.g. gold) are generally treated as having timelessly fixed identities. Biological kinds (e.g. goldfinches) are generally treated as evolved and/or evolving entities. So what kind of kind is a biochemical kind? This paper defends the thesis that biochemical molecules are clustered chemical kinds, some of which–namely, evolutionarily conserved units–are also biological kinds.On this thesis, a number of difficulties that have recently occupied philosophers concerned with proteins and kinds are shown to be resolved or dissolved.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Michael Baur (1992). Kinds of Being. Review of Metaphysics 46 (1):166-168.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (2010). Introduction. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (2010). On the Abuse of the Necessary a Posteriori. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge. 159--79.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.) (2010). The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
    Essentialism--roughly, the view that natural kinds have discrete essences, generating truths that are necessary but knowable only a posteriori --is an increasingly popular view in the metaphysics of science. At the same time, philosophers of language have been subjecting Kripke’s views about the existence and scope of the necessary a posteriori to rigorous analysis and criticism. Essentialists typically appeal to Kripkean semantics to motivate their radical extension of the realm of the necessary a posteriori ; but they rarely attempt to (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Hanoch Ben-Yami (2001). The Semantics of Kind Terms. Philosophical Studies 102 (2):155-184.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Corine Besson (2010). Rigidity, Natural Kind Terms, and Metasemantics. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge. 25--44.
    A paradigmatic case of rigidity for singular terms is that of proper names. And it would seem that a paradigmatic case of rigidity for general terms is that of natural kind terms. However, many philosophers think that rigidity cannot be extended from singular terms to general terms. The reason for this is that rigidity appears to become trivial when such terms are considered: natural kind terms come out as rigid, but so do all other general terms, and in particular all (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. John Bigelow, Brian Ellis & Caroline Lierse (1992). The World as One of a Kind: Natural Necessity and Laws of Nature. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (3):371-388.
  19. Alexander Bird, Are Natural Kinds Reducible?
    We talk as if there are natural kinds and in particular we quantify over them. We can count the number of elements discovered by Sir Humphrey Davy, or the number of kinds of particle in the standard model. Consequently, it looks at first sight at least, that natural kinds are entities of a sort. In the light of this we may ask certain questions: is the apparent existence of natural kinds real or an illusion? And if real, what sort of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Alexander Bird (2010). Discovering the Essences of Natural Kinds. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Alexander Bird (2009). Essences and Natural Kinds. In Robin Le Poidevin (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge. 497--506.
    Essentialism as applied to individuals is the claim that for at least some individuals there are properties that those individuals possess essentially. What it is to possess a property essentially is a matter of debate. To possess a property essentially is often taken to be akin to possessing a property necessarily, but stronger, although this is not a feature of Aristotle’s essentialism, according to which essential properties are those thing could not lose without ceasing to exist. Kit Fine (1994) takes (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Alexander Bird (2008). Lowe on a Posteriori Essentialism. Analysis 68 (4):336 - 344.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Alexander Bird (2008). Remarks on Our Knowledge of Modal Facts. Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 43:54--60.
    Can we have a posteriori knowledge of modal facts? And if so, is that knowledge fundamentally a posteriori, or does a priori intuition provide the modal component of what is known? Though the latter view seems more straightforward, there are also reasons for taking the first option seriously.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Alexander Bird (2007). A Posteriori Knowledge of Natural Kind Essences. Philosophical Topics 35 (1-2):293-312.
    I defend this claim that some natural essences can be known (only) a pos- teriori against two philosophers who accept essentialism but who hold that essences are known a priori: Joseph LaPorte, who argues from the use of kind terms in science, and E. J. Lowe, who argues from general metaphysical and epistemological principles.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Alexander Bird & Emma Tobin (2008). Natural Kinds. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Steven Boër (1985). Substance and Kind: Reflections on New Theory of Reference. In B. K. Matilal & J. L. Shaw (eds.), Analytical Philosophy in Comparative Perspective. D. Reidel. 103-50.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Richard Boyd (2010). Realism, Natural Kinds, and Philosophical Methods. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge. 212--234.
  28. Richard Boyd (1999). Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa. In R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Mit Press. 141-85.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Richard Boyd (1991). Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds. Philosophical Studies 61 (1-2):127-48.
  30. David Braddon-Mitchell (2005). Conceptual Stability and the Meaning of Natural Kind Terms. Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):859-868.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. J. Brakel (1992). Natural Kinds and Manifest Forms of Life. Dialectica 46 (3‐4):243-261.
    SummaryIn this paper I try to make sense of and give provisional answers to question like: Are there interesting theories about natural kinds ? Are some classifications or categorisations more natural than others? Does it matter whether or not there are natural kinds? To get an initial feel for the subject let's consider some suggestions from the literature as to what might count as a candidate for a natural kind or natural kind term.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. J. Brakel (1990). Units of Measurement and Natural Kinds: Some Kripkean Considerations. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 33 (3):297 - 317.
    Kripke has argued that definitions of units of measurements provide examples of statements that are both contingent and a priori. In this paper I argue that definitions of units of measurement are intended to be stipulations of what Kripke calls theoretical identities: a stipulation that two terms will have the same rigid designation. Hence such a definition is both a priori and necessary. The necessity arises because such definitions appeal to natural kind properties only, which on Kripke's account are necessary.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. David Braun (2006). Names and Natural Kind Terms. In Ernest Lepore & Barry C. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. 490--515.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Ingo Brigandt (2011). Natural Kinds and Concepts: A Pragmatist and Methodologically Naturalistic Account. In Jonathan Knowles & Henrik Rydenfelt (eds.), Pragmatism, Science and Naturalism. Peter Lang Publishing.
    The central aim of this essay is to put forward a notion of naturalism that broadly aligns with pragmatism. I do so by outlining my views on natural kinds and my account of concepts, which I have defended in recent publications (Brigandt 2009, in press-b). Philosophical accounts of both natural kinds and concepts are usually taken to be metaphysical endeavours, which attempt to develop a theory of the nature of natural kinds (as objectively existing entities of the world) or of (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Ingo Brigandt (2009). Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):77-97.
    Despite the traditional focus on metaphysical issues in discussions of natural kinds in biology, epistemological considerations are at least as important. By revisiting the debate as to whether taxa are kinds or individuals, I argue that both accounts are metaphysically compatible, but that one or the other approach can be pragmatically preferable depending on the epistemic context. Recent objections against construing species as homeostatic property cluster kinds are also addressed. The second part of the paper broadens the perspective by considering (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Ingo Brigandt (2004). Biological Kinds and the Causal Theory of Reference. In J. C. Marek & M. E. Reicher (eds.), Experience and Analysis: Papers of the 27th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
    This paper uses an example from biology, the homology concept, to argue that current versions of the causal theory of reference give an incomplete account of reference determination. It is suggested that in addition to samples and stereotypical properties, the scientific use of concepts and the epistemic interests pursued with concepts are important factors in determining the reference of natural kind terms.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. B. A. Brody (1967). Natural Kinds and Real Essences. Journal of Philosophy 64 (14):431-446.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Berit Brogaard (2004). Species as Individuals. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):223-242.
    There is no question that the constituents of cells and organisms are joined together by the part-whole relation. Genes are part of cells, and cells are part of organisms. Species taxa, however, have traditionally been conceived of, not as wholes with parts, but as classes with members. But why does the relation change abruptly from part-whole to class-membership above the level of organisms? Ghiselin, Hull and others have argued that it doesn't. Cells and organisms are cohesive mereological sums, and since (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. J. Brown (1998). Natural Kind Terms and Recognitional Capacities. Mind 107 (426):275-303.
    The main contribution of this paper is a new account of how a community may introduce a term for a natural kind in advance of knowing the correct scientific account of that kind. The account is motivated by the inadequacy of the currently dominant accounts of how a community may do this, namely those proposed by Kripke and by Putman. Their accounts fail to deal satisfactorily with the facts that (1) typically, an item that instantiates one natural kind instantiates several (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. J. Brown (1998). Recognitional Capacities and Natural Kind Terms. In Daniel N. Robinson (ed.), The Mind. Oxford University Press. 107--275.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Barbara Brüning (2001). Natürliche Unarten. Erkenntnis 54 (1):17-29.
    Today it is widely accepted among philosophers ofanalytical inclination that there are two theoriesabout what endows words with their extensions: thetheory of natural kinds and the so-called Californiansemantics. It is widely agreed that the first issuperior to the second because it can not only explainthe indexicality of the extension of natural kindterms as well as their social character but also avoidGoodman''s paradox of projectibility. Natural kindterms can not be corrupted concepts since theirmembers are grouped by objective similarity.It will be shown (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Cameron Buckner (forthcoming). Functional Kinds-A Skeptical Look. Synthese:1-28.
    The functionalist approach to kinds has suffered recently due to its association with law-based approaches to induction and explanation. Philosophers of science increasingly view nomological approaches as inappropriate for the special sciences like psychology and biology, which has led to a surge of interest in approaches to natural kinds that are more obviously compatible with mechanistic and model-based methods, especially homeostatic property cluster theory. But can the functionalist approach to kinds be weaned off its dependency on laws? Dan Weiskopf has (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Cameron Buckner (forthcoming). Transitional Gradation in the Mind: Rethinking Psychological Kindhood. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
    I here critique the application of the traditional, similarity-based account of natural kinds to debates in psychology. A challenge to such accounts of kindhood—familiar from the study of biological species—is a metaphysical phenomenon that I call ‘transitional gradation’: the systematic progression of slightly modified transitional forms between related candidate kinds. Where such gradation proliferates, it renders the selection of similarity criteria for kinds arbitrary. Reflection on general features of learning—especially on the gradual revision of concepts throughout the acquisition of expertise—shows (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. A. Burms & R. Vergauwen (1991). Natural Kinds and Moral Distinctions. Philosophia 21 (1-2):101-105.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew H. Slater (eds.) (2011). Carving Nature at its Joints: Natural Kinds in Metaphysics and Science. Mit Press.
    Are there natural kinds of things around which our theories cut? The essays in this volume offer reflections by a distinguished group of philosophers on a series of intertwined issues in the metaphysics and epistemology of classification.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Joseph Keim Campbell, Matthew H. Slater & Michael O'Rourke (eds.) (forthcoming). Carving Nature at its Joints. Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, Vol. 8. MIT Press.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Arthur C. Caplan (1980). Have Species Become Declasse? Psa 1980:71-82.
    Traditionally, species have been treated as classes or kinds in philosophical discussions of systematics and evolutionary biology. Recently a number of biologists and philosophers have proposed a drastic revision of this traditional ontological categorization. They have argued that species ought be viewed as individuals rather than as classes or natural kinds. In this paper an attempt is made to show that (a) the reasons advanced in support of this new view of species are not persuasive, (b) a reasonable explication can (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. G. K. Chesterton (1976). The Two Kinds. The Chesterton Review 2 (2):275-275.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Carleton B. Christensen (2001). Escape From Twin Earth: Putnam's 'Logic' of Natural Kind Terms. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9 (2):123-150.
    Many still seem confident that the kind of semantic theory Putnam once proposed for natural kind terms is right. This paper seeks to show that this confidence is misplaced because the general idea underlying the theory is incoherent. Consequently, the theory must be rejected prior to any consideration of its epistemological, ontological or metaphysical acceptability. Part I sets the stage by showing that falsehoods, indeed absurdities, follow from the theory when one deliberately suspends certain devices Putnam built into it , (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Paul Churchland (1985). Conceptual Progress and Word/World Relations: In Search of the Essence of Natural Kinds. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15 (1):1-17.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 341