Monism on the one hand, pluralism on the other

Philosophy of Science 72 (1):22-42 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I consider ways of responding to critiques of natural kinds monism recently suggested from the pluralist camp. Even if monism is determined to be untenable in certain domains (say, about species), it might well be tenable in others. Chemistry is suggested to be such a monist‐friendly domain. Suggestions of trouble for chemical kinds can be defused by attending to the difference between monism as a metaphysical thesis and as a claim about classification systems. Finally, I consider enantiomers as a test case for the monism/pluralism debate. The question of whether enantiomers differ in kind does not appear easily answerable. I suggest that this legislates for pluralism in chemistry.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,336

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

Callicott and Naess on pluralism.Andrew Light - 1996 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):273 – 294.
Monism and intrinsicality.Kelly Trogdon - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):127 – 148.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
81 (#177,286)

6 months
6 (#160,102)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew Slater
Bucknell University

Citations of this work

Natural Kindness.Matthew H. Slater - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (2):375-411.
Macromolecular Pluralism.Matthew H. Slater - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (5):851-863.
Cell Types as Natural Kinds.Matthew H. Slater - 2013 - Biological Theory 7 (2):170-179.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations