Natural Kinds as Categorical Bottlenecks (original) (raw)
Related papers
The metaphysics of natural kinds
This paper maps the landscape for a range of views concerning the metaphysics of natural kinds. I consider a range of increasingly ontologically committed views concerning natural kinds and the possible arguments for them. I then ask how these relate to natural kind essentialism, arguing that essentialism requires commitment to kinds as entities. I conclude by examining the homeostatic property cluster view of kinds in the light of the general understanding of kinds developed.
On the necessity of natural kinds
I argue that natural kinds are necessary for science, and that they are properties, not classes of objects. They depend on causal regularities, not on some transcendent essence. I also argue that their metaphysical necessity arises not from a transcendent necessity, but because they exist in all and only possible worlds in which they have the relevant causal regularities. Thus they can be both necessary and contingent -- they cannot be otherwise, but they might not exist.
Natural kinds: a new synthesis
THEORIA, 2020
What is a natural kind? This old yet lasting philosophical question has recently received new competing answers (e.g., Chakravartty, 2007; Magnus, 2014; Khalidi, 2013; Slater, 2015; Ereshefsky & Reydon, 2015). We show that the main ingredients of an encompassing and coherent account of natural kinds are actually on the table, but in need of the right articulation. It is by adopting a non-reductionist, naturalistic and non-conceptualist approach that, in this paper, we elaborate a new synthesis of all these ingredients. Our resulting proposition is a multiple-compartment theory of natural kinds that defines them in purely ontological terms, clearly distinguishes and relates ontological and epistemological issues-more precisely, two grains of ontological descriptions and two grains of explanatory success of natural kinds-, and which sheds light on why natural kinds play an epistemic role both within science and in everyday life. Short summary: This paper proposes a new take on the philosophical debate on natural kinds by elaborating a multi-compartment theory that defines them in purely ontological terms, and clearly distinguishes and relates ontological and epistemological issues. Our theory succeeds in articulating various existing important insights on natural kinds that have been structuring the debate in the last fifteen years in philosophy of science. 2
Natural kinds and concepts: a pragmatist and methodologically naturalistic account
In this chapter I lay out a notion of philosophical naturalism that aligns with pragmatism. It is developed and illustrated by a presentation of my views on natural kinds and my theory of concepts. Both accounts reflect a methodological naturalism and are defended not based on metaphysical considerations, but in terms of their philosophical fruitfulness. A core theme is that the epistemic interests of scientists have to be taken into account by any naturalistic philosophy of science in general, and any account of natural kinds and scientific concepts in particular. I conclude with general methodological remarks on how to develop and defend philosophical notions without using intuitions.
Natural kinds : a new synthesis ( Clases naturales : una nueva síntesis )
2020
What is a natural kind? This old yet lasting philosophical question has recently received new competing answers (e.g., Chakravartty, 2007; Magnus, 2014; Khalidi, 2013; Slater, 2015; Ereshefsky & Reydon, 2015). We show that the main ingredients of an encompassing and coherent account of natural kinds are actually on the table, but in need of the right articulation. It is by adopting a non-reductionist, naturalistic and non-conceptualist approach that, in this paper, we elaborate a new synthesis of all these ingredients. Our resulting proposition is a multiple-compartment theory of natural kinds that defines them in purely ontological terms, clearly distinguishes and relates ontological and epistemological issues —more precisely, two grains of ontological descriptions and two grains of explanatory success of natural kinds—, and which sheds light on why natural kinds play an epistemic role both within science and
American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 2001
The majority of philosophers working in cognitive science adopt a naturalistic stance toward the higher level phenomena displayed in sentient creatures. In this paper, I use recent analyses by Patricia Churchland and Owen Flanagan of the free will/determinism issue as a framework within which to identify and challenge a number of metaphysical assumptions that are at the core of this naturalistic stance. This exercise is intended to serve as an antidote to the tendency among cognitive scientists to treat naturalism as established fact rather than a hypothesis that is open to continuing challenge and revision. I conclude that human free will and agency is a feature of human experience that cannot be fully accounted for from a naturalistic stance.
A Defence of Pluralism in the Debate about Natural Kinds
Forum Philosophicum, 2007
I reconsider the monism/pluralism debate about natural kinds. Monism claims that there is a privileged division of reality in natural kinds, while pluralism states that there are many ways for classifying objects according to different purposes. I compare three different monistic accounts of natural kinds with the pluralism advocated by promiscuous realism. The analysis of some examples of classification of celestial objects suggests that there are indeed different legitimate ways for classifying things according to different purposes; contrary to monism, there are not fixed boundaries between kinds. These results show that promiscuous realism is a better account of natural kind.
Natural Kinds as Nodes in Causal Networks, Synthese, 195:4 (2018), 1379-1396.
Synthese, 2018
In this paper I offer a unified causal account of natural kinds. Using as a starting point the widely held view that natural kind terms or predicates are projectible, I argue that the ontological bases of their projectibility are the causal properties and relations associated with the natural kinds themselves. Natural kinds are not just concatenations of properties but ordered hierarchies of properties, whose instances are related to one another as causes and effects in recurrent causal processes. The resulting account of natural kinds as clusters of core causal properties that give rise to clusters of derivative properties enables us to distinguish genuine natural kinds from non-natural kinds. For instance, it enables us to say why some of the purely conventional categories derived from the social domain do not correspond to natural kinds, though other social categories may.
Natural Kinds and Natural Kind Terms: Myth and Reality
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2017
The article examines the role of natural kinds in semantic theorizing, which has largely been conducted in isolation from relevant work in science, metaphysics, and philosophy of science. We argue that the Kripke–Putnam account of natural kind terms, despite recent claims to the contrary, depends on a certain metaphysics of natural kinds; that the metaphysics usually assumed—micro-essentialism—is untenable even in a ‘placeholder’ version; and that the currently popular homeostatic property cluster theory of natural kinds is correct only to an extent that fails to vindicate the Kripke–Putnam account. This undermines the metasemantics required for anti-descriptivist semantics. 1 Introduction2 From Semantics to Metaphysics3 Metaphysics, Part I: The Demise of Micro-essentialism 3.1 Original micro-essentialism 3.2 Placeholder essentialism4 Metaphysics, Part II: Homeostatic Property Cluster Theory5 Prospects for Natural Kind Term Semantics
Natural kinds and dispositions: a causal analysis
Synthese
Objects have dispositions. Dispositions are normally analyzed by providing a meaning to disposition ascriptions like 'This piece of salt is soluble'. Philosophers like Carnap, Goodman, Quine, Lewis and many others have proposed analyses of such disposition ascriptions. In this paper we will argue with Quine ('Natural Kinds', 1970) that the proper analysis of ascriptions of the form 'x is disposed to m (when C)', where 'x' denotes an object, 'm' a manifestation, and 'C' a condition, goes like this: (i) 'x is of natural kind k', and (ii) the generic 'ks are m (when C)' is true. For the analysis of the generic, we propose an analysis in terms of causal powers: 'ks (when C) have the causal power to m'. The latter, in turn, is analyzed in a very precise way, making use of Pearl's probabilistic graphical causal models. We will show how this natural kind-analysis improves on standard conditional analyses of dispositions by avoiding the standard counterexamples, and that it gives rise to precise observable criteria under which the disposition ascription is true. Keywords Natural kinds • Dispositions • Generics • Causality We would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their valuable comments. We would also like to thank Dean McHugh for correcting our English.