Philosophical Studies

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 153–169 | Cite as

Theories of natural kind term reference and empirical psychology



In this paper, I argue that the causal and description theories of natural kind term reference involve certain psychological elements. My main goal is to refine these theories with the help of empirical psychology of concepts, and to argue that the refinement process ultimately leads to the dissolution of boundaries between the two kinds of theories. However, neither the refined theories nor any other existing theories provide an adequate answer to the question of what makes natural kind terms rigid. To provide an answer to this question I conclude my paper by introducing a framework of a unified theory of natural kind term reference that is built on the empirical psychology of concepts.


Reference Description theory Causal theory Hybrid theory Qua problem Composition problem Rigidity Concepts Psychological essentialism Prototype theory Exemplar theory 


  1. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2004). Masters of our meanings. Philosophical Studies, 118, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, J. (1998). Natural kind terms and recognitional capacities. Mind, 107, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davies, M. (2004). Reference, contingency, and the two-dimensional framework. Philosophical Studies, 118, 83–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1999). Language and reality. An introduction to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child. Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson, F. (1998). Reference and description revisited. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 201–218.Google Scholar
  8. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In S. Laurence, & E. Margolis (Eds.), Concepts: core readings (pp. 3–81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind. concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In H. Putnam (Ed.), Mind, language and reality. philosophical papers, Vol. 2 (pp. 215–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and stereotypes. Cognition, 15, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwartz, S. P. (2002). Kinds, general terms, and rigidity: A reply to laporte. Philosophical Studies, 109, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, E. E., Medin, D. L. & Rips, L. J. (1984). A psychological approach to concepts: comments on Rey’s ‘concepts and stereotypes’. Cognition, 17, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soames, S. (2003). Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century, vol. 2. The age of meaning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Stanford, P. K., & Kitcher, P. (2000). Refining the causal theory of reference for natural kind terms. Philosophical Studies, 97, 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strevens, M. (2000). The essentialist aspect of naive theories. Cognition, 74, 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations