more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 13581

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / a. Scientific essentialism ]

Full Idea

Scientific essentialism is less concerned with questions of identity, and more with questions of explanation, than is the essentialism of Aristotle or of Kripke. It is closest to the kind of essentialism described by Locke.

Gist of Idea

Scientific essentialism is more concerned with explanation than with identity (Locke, not Kripke)

Source

Brian Ellis (Scientific Essentialism [2001], 1.12)

Book Ref

Ellis,Brian: 'Scientific Essentialism' [CUP 2007], p.55


A Reaction

Locke is popularly held to be anti-essentialist, but that is only because of his epistemological problems. I think Ellis is here misreading Aristotle, and I would ally Aristotle, Locke (cautiously), Leibniz, Ellis and Fine against Kripkeans on this one.


The 35 ideas from 'Scientific Essentialism'

Ontology should give insight into or an explanation of the world revealed by science [Ellis]
Basic powers may not be explained by structure, if at the bottom level there is no structure [Ellis]
Scientific essentialism doesn't really need Kripkean individual essences [Ellis]
Individual essences necessitate that individual; natural kind essences necessitate kind membership [Ellis]
To give essentialist explanations there have to be natural kinds [Ellis]
A proton must have its causal role, because without it it wouldn't be a proton [Ellis]
There are 'substantive' (objects of some kind), 'dynamic' (events of some kind) and 'property' universals [Ellis]
Universals are all types of natural kind [Ellis]
Natural kinds are distinguished by resting on essences [Ellis]
If there are borderline cases between natural kinds, that makes them superficial [Ellis]
Necessities are distinguished by their grounds, not their different modalities [Ellis]
Typical 'categorical' properties are spatio-temporal, such as shape [Ellis]
The old idea that identity depends on essence and behaviour is rejected by the empiricists [Ellis]
What is most distinctive of scientific essentialism is regarding processes as natural kinds [Ellis]
Scientific essentialism is more concerned with explanation than with identity (Locke, not Kripke) [Ellis]
Causal powers must necessarily act the way they do [Ellis]
'Being a methane molecule' is not a property - it is just a predicate [Ellis]
There might be uninstantiated natural kinds, such as transuranic elements which have never occurred [Ellis]
The extension of a property is a contingent fact, so cannot be the essence of the property [Ellis]
The most fundamental properties of nature (mass, charge, spin ...) all seem to be dispositions [Ellis]
Maybe dispositions can be explained by intrinsic properties or structures [Ellis]
There is no property of 'fragility', as things are each fragile in a distinctive way [Ellis]
A causal power is a disposition to produce forces [Ellis]
Laws don't exist in the world; they are true of the world [Ellis]
The ontological fundamentals are dispositions, and also categorical (spatio-temporal and structural) properties [Ellis]
Good explanations unify [Ellis]
Powers are dispositions of the essences of kinds that involve them in causation [Ellis]
Causal powers are often directional (e.g. centripetal, centrifugal, circulatory) [Ellis]
The point of models in theories is not to idealise, but to focus on what is essential [Ellis]
Explanations of particular events are not essentialist, as they don't reveal essential structures [Ellis]
A primary aim of science is to show the limits of the possible [Ellis]
Real possibility and necessity has the logic of S5, which links equivalence classes of worlds of the same kind [Ellis]
The property of 'being an electron' is not of anything, and only electrons could have it [Ellis]
Humean conceptions of reality drive the adoption of extensional logic [Ellis]
If events are unconnected, then induction cannot be solved [Ellis]