Notes
While I hesitate to comment on gender identity by genderizing names and google searches, to the best of my knowledge there are only three papers by women out of twelve entries in this collection—one for each section. This does not seem to be representative of women working on the topic. I find the continued underrepresentation of women in publications tiring, especially when approaching a contemporary area like this. And so, I intentionally comment on those three papers a bit more than others in order to foreground their contributions.
Principled versus capricious individuation looks a lot like its counterpart debate concerning causal selection—selection and individuation at first glance look to go hand in hand. Brian Hanley (“Mill’s Problem of Causal Selection: A More Millian Interpretation” Cascadia Workshop, 2019) argues that capricious reasoning is not necessarily grounds for pessimism. Similarly, capricious individuation might just be an invitation for philosophical analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McConwell, A.K. Otávio Bueno, Ruey-Lin Chen, & Melinda Bonnie Fagan (eds.), Individuation, Process, and Scientific Practice, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018, x + 308 pp. HPLS 42, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0297-3
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0297-3