Can abstractions be causes?
Biology and Philosophy 5 (1):63-77 (1990)
| Abstract | The Empiricist or Lockean view says natural kinds do not exist objectively in nature but are practical categories reflecting use of words. The Modern, Ostensive view says they do exist, and one can refer to such a kind by ostention and recursion, assuming his designation of it is related causally to the kind itself. However, this leads to a problem: Kinds are abstract repeatables, and it seems impossible that abstractions could have causal force. In defence of the Modern view, I suggest we can think of kinds as — or as like — ecological niches existing in nature, which are causally effective by virtue of the fact that they predictively determine (some) properties of the things that happen to occupy them. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAlexander Bird (2009). Essences and Natural Kinds. In Robin Le Poidevin (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge.
Ernest W. Adams (1993). Classical Physical Abstraction. Erkenntnis 38 (2):145 - 167.
Stefan Dragulinescu (2010). Diseases as Natural Kinds. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (5):347-369.
Richard Levins (2006). Strategies of Abstraction. Biology and Philosophy 21 (5):741-755.
John Bolender (2006). Nomic Universals and Particular Causal Relations: Which Are Basic and Which Are Derived? Philosophia 34 (4):405-410.
Kathleen Miller (1994). Abstractions Can Be Causes — a Response to Professor Hogan. Biology and Philosophy 9 (1):99-103.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #178,675 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
