Dis-ease about kinds: Reply to D'Amico

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (5):571-584 (1995)
Abstract
I argued that a value-free account of our concept of <span class='Hi'>disease</span> cannot be given. Part of this argument consisted in showing that diseases as a class do not constitute a natural kind. To understand this, we need only see that we define and classify conditions into diseases and non-diseases not in terms of their causes but in terms of their effects. While no philosophical position is watertight, the arguments overwhelmingly favour the conclusion that diseases do not constitute a natural kind. Keywords: <span class='Hi'>Disease</span>, natural kind, value-laden CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,819
External links
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
Stefan Dragulinescu (2010). Diseases as Natural Kinds. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (5):347-369.
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-08-24

Total downloads

13 ( #125,691 of 1,099,914 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #90,387 of 1,099,914 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.