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

Authors
Matthew Slater
Bucknell University
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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/426847
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,021
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Natural Kindness.Matthew H. Slater - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (2):375-411.
Cell Types as Natural Kinds.Matthew H. Slater - 2013 - Biological Theory 7 (2):170-179.
Aristotle’s Pluralistic Realism.Devin Henry - 2011 - The Monist 94 (2):197-220.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

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 index
2009-01-28

Total views
68 ( #152,021 of 2,433,501 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #217,362 of 2,433,501 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes