Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 172, Issue 4, pp 969–986 | Cite as

Scientific kinds

  • Marc Ereshefsky
  • Thomas A. C. Reydon
Article

Abstract

Richard Boyd’s Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC) Theory is becoming the received view of natural kinds in the philosophy of science. However, a problem with HPC Theory is that it neglects many kinds highlighted by scientific classifications while at the same time endorsing kinds rejected by science. In other words, there is a mismatch between HPC kinds and the kinds of science. An adequate account of natural kinds should accurately track the classifications of successful science. We offer an alternative account of natural kinds that better recognizes the diversity of epistemic aims scientists have for constructing classifications. That account introduces the idea of a classificatory program and provides criteria for judging whether a classificatory program identifies natural kinds.

Keywords

Natural kinds Classification Homeostatic property clusters Richard Boyd Scientific kinds Classificatory programs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Travis Dumsday, Miles MacLeod, P. D. Magnus, Matthew Slater, and Elliott Sober for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Marc thanks the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support.

References

  1. Bodenreider, O., & Stevens, R. (2006). Bio-ontologies: Current trends and future directions. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 7, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, R. N. (1990). Realism, approximate truth, and philosophical method. In C. W. Savage (Ed.), Scientific theories (pp. 355–391). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, R. N. (1991). Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, R. N. (1999a). Kinds, complexity and multiple realization. Philosophical Studies, 95, 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, R. N. (1999b). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, R. N. (2000). Kinds as the “workmanship of men”: Realism, constructivism, and natural kinds. In J. Nida-Rümelin (Ed.), Rationalität, Realismus, Revision: Vorträge des 3. Internationalen Kongresses der Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie (pp. 52–89). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, R. N. (2003a). Finite beings, finite goods: The semantics, metaphysics and ethics of naturalist consequentialism, Part I. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXVI, 505–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd, R. N. (2003b). Finite beings, finite goods: The semantics, metaphysics and ethics of naturalist consequentialism, Part II. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXVII, 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brigandt, I. (2009). Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: Metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheoretica, 57, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne, J. A., & Orr, H. A. (2004). Speciation. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  12. Dupré, J. A. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dupré, J. A. (1999). Are Whales fish? In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 461–476). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ereshefsky, M. (2001). The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ereshefsky, M., & Matthen, M. (2005). Taxonomy, polymorphism, and history: An introduction to population structure theory. Philosophy of Science, 72, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J. A. (1974). Special sciences (Or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical essences. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 209–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hacking, I. (1991a). A tradition of natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hacking, I. (1991b). On Boyd. Philosophical Studies, 61, 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hacking, I. (2007). Natural kinds: Rosy dawn, scholastic twilight. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement (Philosophy of Science), 61, 203–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hull, D. L. (1970). Contemporary systematic philosophies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hull, D. (1978). A matter of individuality. Philosophy of Science, 45, 335–360.Google Scholar
  23. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keller, R. A., Boyd, R. N., & Wheeler, Q. D. (2003). The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Botanical Review, 69, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laudan, L. (1987). Progress or rationality? The prospects for normative naturalism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 24, 19–31.Google Scholar
  27. Laudan, L. (1990). Normative naturalism. Philosophy of Science, 57, 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magnus, P. D. (2011). Drakes, seadevils, and similarity fetishism. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 857–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mallon, R. (2007). Human categories beyond non-essentialism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 15, 146–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayr, E. (1940). Speciation phenomena in birds. American Naturalist, 74, 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Evolution, diversity, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Popper, K. R. (1963). Science: Conjectures and refutations. In Conjectures and refutations (pp. 33–65). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  33. Reydon, T. A. C. (2006). Generalizations and kinds in natural science: The case of species. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37, 230–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reydon, T. A. C. (2009). How to fix kind membership: A problem for HPC-theory and a solution. Philosophy of Science, 76, 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ridley, M. (1996). Evolution (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  36. Rieppel, O. (2005). Modules, kinds, and homology. Journal of Experimental Zoology B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 304B, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosselló-Mora, R., & Amann, R. (2001). The species concept for prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 25, 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruphy, S. (2010). Are stellar kinds natural kinds? A challenging newcomer in the monism/pluralism and realism/antirealism debate. Philosophy of Science, 77, 1109–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Samuels, R., & Ferreira, M. (2010). Why don’t concepts constitute a natural kind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 222–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sneath, P. H., & Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  41. Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stackebrandt, E. (2006). Defining taxonomic ranks. In M. Dworkin (Ed.), Prokaryotes: A handbook on the biology of bacteria (Vol. 1, pp. 29–57). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner, G. P. (2001). Characters, units and natural kinds: An introduction. In G. P. Wagner (Ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology (pp. 1–10). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waters, C. K. (1994). Genes made molecular. Philosophy of Science, 61, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson, R. A. (1999). Realism, essence, and kind: Resuscitating species essentialism? In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 187–207). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, R. A., Barker, N. J., & Brigandt, I. (2007). When traditional essentialism fails: Biological natural kinds. Philosophical Topics, 35, 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Philosophy, Center for Philosophy and Ethics of Science (ZEWW) and Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences (CELLS)Leibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations