more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
We know from biology that naturally occurring species do not exhibit the constancy required by the concept of natural kind.
Gist of Idea
Species do not have enough constancy to be natural kinds
Source
Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 8.IV)
Book Ref
Harré,R/Madden,E.H.: 'Causal Powers: A Theory of Natural Necessity' [Blackwell 1975], p.150
A Reaction
This view has been challenged recently. How much constancy does a natural kind need? Even protons decay eventually, it seems. I think a natural kind just needs a fair degree of stability over a reasonable time-period. Tigers qualify.
| 10398 | Natural kinds are not special; they are just well-defined resemblance collections [Abelard, by King,P] |
| 13575 | If there are borderline cases between natural kinds, that makes them superficial [Ellis] |
| 16954 | Generalised talk of 'natural kinds' is unfortunate, as they vary too much [Dummett] |
| 6765 | Nominal essence may well be neither necessary nor sufficient for a natural kind [Kripke, by Bird] |
| 15299 | Species do not have enough constancy to be natural kinds [Harré/Madden] |
| 17375 | Natural kinds are decided entirely by the intentions of our classification [Dupré] |
| 17380 | Wales may count as fish [Dupré] |
| 17382 | Cooks, unlike scientists, distinguish garlic from onions [Dupré] |
| 17379 | Borders between species are much less clear in vegetables than among animals [Dupré] |
| 17384 | Even atoms of an element differ, in the energy levels of their electrons [Dupré] |
| 17387 | Ecologists favour classifying by niche, even though that can clash with genealogy [Dupré] |
| 10351 | Natural kinds are social institutions [Kusch] |