more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
In my view, Kripke's promotion of 'natural kinds', coverning chemical substances and animal and plant species, is unfortunate, since these are rather different types of things, and words used for them behave differently.
Gist of Idea
Generalised talk of 'natural kinds' is unfortunate, as they vary too much
Source
Michael Dummett (Could There Be Unicorns? [1983], 2)
Book Ref
Dummett,Michael: 'The Seas of Language' [OUP 1993], p.331
A Reaction
My view is that the only significant difference among natural kinds is their degree of stability in character. Presumably particles, elements and particular molecules are fairly invariant, but living things evolve.
| 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] |