Is disease a natural kind?

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (5):551-569 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX


, Lawrie Reznek argues that disease is not a natural kind term. I raise objections to Reznek's two central arguments for establishing that disease is not a natural kind. In criticizing his a priori, conceptual argument against naturalism, I argue that his conclusion rests on a weaker argument that appeals to the empirical diversity in the symptoms and manifestations of disease. I also raise questions about the account of natural kinds which Reznek utilizes and his point that conventions for classification are excluded by there being natural kinds. Keywords: Disease, natural kind, value judgement CiteULike Connotea What's this?



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,873

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Diseases as natural kinds.Stefan Dragulinescu - 2010 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (5):347-369.
Arthritis and Nature's Joints.Neil E. Williams - 2011 - In Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew H. Slater (eds.), Carving nature at its joints: natural kinds in metaphysics and science. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Diseases and natural kinds.Daniel P. Sulmasy - 2005 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (6):487-513.
Naming natural kinds.Åsa Maria Wikforss - 2005 - Synthese 145 (1):65-87.
La durata naturale di un genere naturale.Andrea Borghini - 2008 - Rivista di Estetica 39:89-101.
The social concept of disease.Juha Räikkä - 1996 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 17 (4).
Dis-ease about kinds: Reply to D'Amico.Lawrie Reznek - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (5):571-584.


Added to PP

116 (#157,116)

6 months
9 (#352,458)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert D'Amico
University of Florida

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references