Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 76 (5):851-863 (2009)
|Abstract||Different chemical species are often cited as paradigm examples of structurally delimited natural kinds. While classificatory monism may thus seem plausible for simple molecules, it looks less attractive for complex biological macromolecules. I focus on the case of proteins that are most plausibly individuated by their functions. Is there a single, objective count of proteins? I argue that the vagaries of function individuation infect protein classification. We should be pluralists about macromolecular classification.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
William Goodwin (2011). Structure, Function, and Protein Taxonomy. Biology and Philosophy 26 (4):533-545.
Robert Talisse (2005). Why Pragmatists Cannot Be Pluralists. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 41 (1):101 - 118.
Kelly Trogdon (2010). Intrinsicality for Monists (and Pluralists). Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):555-558.
Jason Turner (2012). Logic and Ontological Pluralism. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):419-448.
Douglas Edwards (2011). Simplifying Alethic Pluralism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (1):28-48.
Jing Huang & Feng Shi (2005). Support Vector Machines for Predicting Apoptosis Proteins Types. Acta Biotheoretica 53 (1).
Marc Ereshefsky (1992). Eliminative Pluralism. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):671-690.
Emma Tobin (2010). Microstructuralism and Macromolecules: The Case of Moonlighting Proteins. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 12 (1):41-54.
Matthew H. Slater (2005). Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other. Philosophy of Science 72 (1):22-42.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #22,613 of 739,100 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #7,554 of 739,100 )
How can I increase my downloads?