Advertisement

Water has a microstructural essence after all

  • Carl HoeferEmail author
  • Genoveva Martí
Paper in Philosophy of the Natural Sciences
  • 67 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. EPSA17: Selected papers from the biannual conference in Exeter

Abstract

In recent years attacks on the Kripke-Putnam approach to natural kinds and natural kind terms have proliferated. In a recent paper, Häggqvist and Wikforss (The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1–23, 2017) attack the once-dominant essentialist account of natural kinds. Häggqvist & Wikforss also suggest that it is time to return to some sort of cluster-based descriptivist semantics for natural kind terms, thus targeting both the metaphysical and semantic tenets that underpin the Kripke-Putnam approach. In our paper we want to challenge both parts of Häggqvist and Wikforss’ project. We will argue that the anti-essentialist considerations and arguments they raise against the Kripke-Putnam view are far from compelling in some cases, and certainly not decisive against a reasonable form of the view. On the semantic side, although Häggqvist and Wikforss give few details about what a viable cluster-based descriptivist theory should look like, we will argue that one can already see the approach to be a non-starter. Ignorance and error arguments of the kinds provided by Kripke and Putnam continue to be decisive objections. The only way we can see to save the cluster descriptivist approach is to make the essential properties postulated by Kripke and Putnam become essential features of the descriptive cluster. But this makes the success of the approach parasitic on the correctness of the Kripke-Putnam view.

Keywords

Natural kinds Essentialism Reference Descriptivism Substances 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Helen Beebee, Alexander Bird, Catherine Elgin, Robin Hendry, and an anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments on the first version of this paper.

Funding

The research for this paper was supported by projects FFI2016-76799-P and FFI-2015-70707-P of the Spanish MEIC, and the DIAPHORA project (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015-675415.

References

  1. Beebee, H., & Sabbarton-Leary, N. (2010). On the abuse of the necessary a posteriori. In H. Beebee & N. Sabbarton-Leary (Eds.), The semantics and metaphysics of natural kinds. Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Chang, H. (2012). Is water H2O? Evidence, realism and pluralism. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fanelli, M., Formica, M., Fusi, V., Giorgi, L., Micheloni, M., & Paoli, P. (2016). New trends in platinum and palladium complexes as antineoplastic agents. Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 310, 41–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2015.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Häggqvist, S., & Wikforss, Å. (2017). Natural kinds and natural kind terms: Myth and reality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axw041.
  5. Hendry, R. F. (2006). Elements, compounds and other chemical kinds. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 864–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kapdi, A. R., & Fairlamb, I. J. S. (2014). Anti-cancer palladium complexes: A focus on PdX 2 L 2, palladacycles and related complexes. Chemical Society Reviews, 43(13), 4751–4777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. LaPorte, J. (2004). Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Leslie, S.-J. (2013). Essence and natural kinds: When science meets preschooler intuition. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 4.Google Scholar
  9. Needham, P. (2002). The discovery that water is H2O. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Needham, P. (2011). Microessentialism: What is the argument? Noûs, 45(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nimtz, C. (2017). Paradigm terms: The necessity of kind term identifications generalized. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(1), 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of 'meaning'. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, 7. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, H. (1990). Is water necessarily H2O? In J. Conant (Ed.), Realism with a human face. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sabbarton-Leary, N. (2010). Descriptivist reference from metaphysical essence. dialectica, 64(3), 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zvolenszky, Z. (2012). Searle on analyticity, necessity, and proper names. Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu, 19(2).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICREA, Pg. Lluís Companys 23BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations