Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:17:59.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natural Kinds, Mind Independence, and Defeasibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marc Ereshefsky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A standard requirement on natural kinds is that they be mind independent. However, many kinds in the human and social sciences, even the natural sciences, depend on human thought. This article suggests that the mind independence requirement on natural kinds be replaced with the requirement that natural kind classifications be defeasible. The defeasibility requirement does not require that natural kinds be mind independent, so it does not exclude mind dependent scientific kinds from being natural kinds. Furthermore, the defeasibility requirement captures the idea that natural kind classifications are tools for investigating the empirical world.

Information

Type
Natural Kinds
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 5 , December 2018 , pp. 845 - 856
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

My thanks to Mohammad Ali Khalidi, David Ludwig, Christophe Malaterre, Jay Odenbaugh, Matthew Slater, Ken Waters, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Audiences at the Philosophy Science Association, University of Toronto, University of Quebec at Montreal, and Concordia University provided helpful feedback. Financial support was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Bird, Alexander, and Tobin, Emma. 2017. “Natural Kinds.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/natural-kinds/.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1999. “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa.” In Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, ed. Wilson, Robert A., 141–85. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 2005. “Scientific Realism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, ed. Jackson, Frank and Smith, Michael, 766–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, John. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc, and Reydon, Thomas. 2015. “Scientific Kinds.” Philosophical Studies 172:969–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin-Hall, Laura. 2015. “Natural Kinds as Categorical Bottlenecks.” Philosophical Studies 172:925–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2015. “Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Naturalism and Anti-naturalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawley, Katherine, and Bird, Alexander. 2011. “What Are Natural Kinds?” Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1): 205–21..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. 2014. “Evidence.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence/.Google Scholar
Kendig, Catherine, ed. 2016. Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Khalidi, Muhammad Ali. 2013. Natural Categories and Human Kinds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalidi, Muhammad Ali 2015. “Three Kinds of Social Kinds.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90:96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. 1894. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lowe, Edward Jonathan. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, Edward Jonathan 2014. “How Real Are Artefacts and Artefact Kinds?” In Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-Made World, ed. Franssen, Maarten, Kroes, Peter, Reydon, Thomas, and Vermaas, Pieter, 17–26. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P. D. 2012. From Planets to Mallards: Scientific Enquiry and Natural Kinds. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, Ron, and Kelly, Daniel. 2012. “Making Race Out of Nothing: Psychologically Constrained Social Roles.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, ed. Kincaid, Harold. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2002. Causation and Explanation. Montreal: McGill-Queen University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, Michael. 2000. “How We Divide the World.” Philosophy of Science 67:628–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, Michael 2003. “The Use of Race in Medicine as a Proxy for Genetic Differences.” Philosophy of Science 70:1173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruphy, Stephanie. 2010. “Are Stellar Kinds Natural Kinds? A Challenging Newcomer in the Monism/Pluralism and Realism/Antirealism Debates.” Philosophy of Science 77 (5): 1109–20..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Soler, Lena, Zwart, Sjoerd, Lunch, Michael, and Israel-Jost, Vincent, eds. 2014. Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1971. “Interpretations and the Sciences of Man.” Review of Metaphysics 25:3–51.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. 2003. “Realism and Human Kinds.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68:580–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar