more on this theme | more from this thinker
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.
| 16952 | If something is only possible relative to another possibility, the possibility relation is not transitive [Dummett] |
| 16953 | Relative possibility one way may be impossible coming back, so it isn't symmetrical [Dummett] |
| 16951 | It was realised that possible worlds covered all modal logics, if they had a structure [Dummett] |
| 16954 | Generalised talk of 'natural kinds' is unfortunate, as they vary too much [Dummett] |
| 16956 | To explain generosity in a person, you must understand a generous action [Dummett] |
| 16960 | If possibilitiy is relative, that might make accessibility non-transitive, and T the correct system [Dummett] |
| 16958 | In S4 the actual world has a special place [Dummett] |
| 16957 | Possible worlds aren't how the world might be, but how a world might be, given some possibility [Dummett] |
| 16959 | If possible worlds have no structure (S5) they are equal, and it is hard to deny them reality [Dummett] |