David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:504 - 511 (1982)
The type in taxonomy is not meant to be a particularly typical specimen, but simply a reference specimen suited to serve as a 'name bearer' whenever doubt arises concerning the identity of a species. The minimum requirement is that the specimen reflects some differentiating characteristics of the species. In analogy, only such individuals should be made the type of an ideological system as adhere to the principal ideologies of that system. Only such an evolutionist could serve as type for Darwinism who on the whole accepts gradual evolution and, as the major moving force in evolution, natural selection. It is very questionable whether the type-method would be of any use where highly heterogeneous, open, or rapidly evolving systems are involved. When the meaning of a system is changing it is less confusing to redefine it than to coin a new term for each change.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Bradie (1986). Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 1 (4):401-459.
Walter J. Bock (1994). Ernst Mayr, Naturalist: His Contributions to Systematics and Evolution. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 9 (3):267-327.
Ernst Mayr (1987). Answers to These Comments. Biology and Philosophy 2 (2):212-225.
Similar books and articles
Joseph LaPorte (2003). Does a Type Specimen Necessarily or Contingently Belong to its Species? Biology and Philosophy 18 (4):583-588.
David L. Hull (1982). Exemplars and Scientific Change. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:479 - 503.
Barbara Gabriella Renzi (2009). A Type Hierarchy of Selection Processes for the Evaluation of Evolutionary Analogies. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 40 (2):311 - 336.
Nick Chater (1997). What is the Type-1/Type-2 Distinction? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):68-69.
Sachio Hirokawa (1992). The Converse Principal Type-Scheme Theorem in Lambda Calculus. Studia Logica 51 (1):83 - 95.
David L. Hull (2000). Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press.
Alex Levin (2001). Individualism, Type Specimens, and the Scrutability of Species Membership. Biology and Philosophy 16 (3):325-38.
Grigori Mints (1993). Resolution Calculus for the First Order Linear Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2 (1):59-83.
L. Hammen (1981). Type-Concept, Higher Classification and Evolution. Acta Biotheoretica 30 (1).
Pierre Poirier & Guillaume Beaulac (2011). Le véritable retour des définitions. Dialogue 50 (1):153-164.
M. D. G. Swaen (1991). The Logic of First Order Intuitionistic Type Theory with Weak Sigma- Elimination. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (2):467-483.
James Jr (2003). On Finding Solutions to Ethical Problems in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (5):439-457.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads10 ( #336,591 of 1,906,977 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,378 of 1,906,977 )
How can I increase my downloads?