more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
We can confidently determine the chemical composition of gold from just a single sample, but we cannot determine the height of trees from just a single tree.
Gist of Idea
One sample of gold is enough, but one tree doesn't give the height of trees
Source
Susan A. Gelman (The Essential Child [2003], 06 'The role')
Book Ref
Gelman,Susan A.: 'The Essential Child' [OUP 2005], p.143
A Reaction
The tricky word here is 'confidently'. If you meet one Latvian who is nice, do you assume they are all nice? At what point do you decide gold etc. really are natural kinds, where one sample tells all? Evolution of species...
| 15170 | We distinguish species by their nominal essence, not by their real essence [Locke] |
| 16937 | You can't base kinds just on resemblance, because chains of resemblance are a muddle [Quine] |
| 13583 | There might be uninstantiated natural kinds, such as transuranic elements which have never occurred [Ellis] |
| 11860 | Lawlike propensities are enough to individuate natural kinds [Wiggins] |
| 15693 | One sample of gold is enough, but one tree doesn't give the height of trees [Gelman] |
| 6769 | In the Kripke-Putnam view only nuclear physicists can know natural kinds [Bird] |
| 6774 | Darwinism suggests that we should have a native ability to detect natural kinds [Bird] |
| 14956 | Explanation by kinds and by clusters of properties just express the stability of reality [Ladyman/Ross] |
| 13285 | Natural kinds support inductive inferences, from previous samples to the next one [Koslicki] |