David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):129-162 (2009)
The dangers of character reification for cladistic inference are explored. The identification and analysis of characters always involves theory-laden abstraction—there is no theory-free “view from nowhere.” Given theory-ladenness, and given a real world with actual objects and processes, how can we separate robustly real biological characters from uncritically reified characters? One way to avoid reification is through the employment of objectivity criteria that give us good methods for identifying robust primary homology statements. I identify six such criteria and explore each with examples. Ultimately, it is important to minimize character reification, because poor character analysis leads to dismal cladograms, even when proper phylogenetic analysis is employed. Given the deep and systemic problems associated with character reification, it is ironic that philosophers have focused almost entirely on phylogenetic analysis and neglected character analysis.
|Keywords||Philosophy Evolutionary Biology Philosophy of Biology|
|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
Richard Boyd (1999). Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa. In R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press 141-85.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1995). Objectivity and the Double Standard for Feminist Epistemologies. Synthese 104 (3):351 - 381.
Helen E. Longino (1995). Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues. Synthese 104 (3):383 - 397.
Sandra Harding (1995). “Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese 104 (3):331 - 349.
John Dupré (2002). Is 'Natural Kind' a Natural Kind Term? The Monist 85 (1):29-49.
Citations of this work BETA
Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther (2011). Part-Whole Science. Synthese 178 (3):397-427.
Aleta Quinn (forthcoming). Phylogenetic Inference to the Best Explanation and the Bad Lot Argument. Synthese:1-15.
Sean A. Valles (2013). Validity and Utility in Biological Traits. Biological Theory 8 (1):93-102.
Fabrizzio Mc Manus (2012). The Structure of Explanations and Counter-Explanations of Homosexuality. Open Journal of Philosophy 2 (4):235-243.
Similar books and articles
Joel Kupperman (1991). Character. Oxford University Press.
A. Chari (2010). Toward a Political Critique of Reification: Lukacs, Honneth and the Aims of Critical Theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism 36 (5):587-606.
Richard Richards (2003). Character Individuation in Phylogenetic Inference. Philosophy of Science 70 (2):264-279.
Timo Jütten (2010). What is Reification? A Critique of Axel Honneth. Inquiry 53 (3):235-256.
Olivier Rieppel & Maureen Kearney (2007). The Poverty of Taxonomic Characters. Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):95-113.
Daniel G. Blackburn (2002). Use of Phylogenetic Analysis to Distinguish Adaptation From Exaptation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):507-508.
Timo Jütten (2011). The Colonization Thesis: Habermas on Reification. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (5):701 - 727.
Arnold Kluge (2009). Explanation and Falsification in Phylogenetic Inference: Exercises in Popperian Philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):171-186.
Dharmveer Singh Krishnawat, Protection of Cartoon Characters Under Intellectual Property Law Regime: An Analysis of Copyright and Trademark Laws.
Julius Sensat (1996). Reification as Dependence on Extrinsic Information. Synthese 109 (3):361 - 399.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads125 ( #30,402 of 1,906,981 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #277,342 of 1,906,981 )
How can I increase my downloads?