more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 17056
[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 5. Reference to Natural Kinds
]
Full Idea
According to the view I advocate, terms for natural kinds are much closer to proper names than is ordinarily supposed. …'Common name' is appropriate for species …and also for certain mass terms such as 'gold' and 'water'.
Gist of Idea
Terms for natural kinds are very close to proper names
Source
Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity lectures [1970], Lecture 3)
Book Ref
Kripke,Saul: 'Naming and Necessity' [Blackwell 1980], p.127
The
13 ideas
with the same theme
[how language terms refer to natural kinds]:
|
16782
|
The names of all the types of creature were given forever by Adam
[Anon (Tor)]
|
|
11904
|
Express natural kinds as a posteriori predicate connections, not as singular terms
[Putnam, by Mackie,P]
|
|
17507
|
Natural kind stereotypes are 'strong' (obvious, like tiger) or 'weak' (obscure, like molybdenum)
[Putnam]
|
|
2342
|
"Water" is a natural kind term, but "H2O" is a description
[Putnam]
|
|
8873
|
The cause of a usage determines meaning, but why is the microstructure of water relevant?
[Davidson]
|
|
4963
|
The properties that fix reference are contingent, the properties involving meaning are necessary
[Kripke]
|
|
17056
|
Terms for natural kinds are very close to proper names
[Kripke]
|
|
18891
|
Nothing in the direct theory of reference blocks anti-essentialism; water structure might have been different
[Salmon,N]
|
|
15701
|
Nouns seem to invoke stable kinds more than predicates do
[Gelman]
|
|
6764
|
Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name
[Bird]
|
|
6766
|
Jadeite and nephrite are superficially identical, but have different composition
[Bird]
|
|
6808
|
Reference to scientific terms is by explanatory role, not by descriptions
[Bird]
|
|
13284
|
Should vernacular classifications ever be counted as natural kind terms?
[Koslicki]
|