more on this theme
|
more from this text
Single Idea 17372
[filed under theme 27. Natural Reality / G. Biology / 5. Species
]
Full Idea
The signs are that the higher categories are not natural kinds and so the Linnaean hierarchy must be abandoned. ...This is not abandoning a hierarchy altogether, it is not abandoning a tree of life.
Gist of Idea
The higher categories are not natural kinds, so the Linnaean hierarchy should be given up
Source
Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 6)
Book Ref
Devitt,Michael: 'Putting Metaphysics First' [OUP 2010], p.211
A Reaction
Devitt's underlying point is that the higher and more general kinds do not have an essence (a specific nature), which is the qualification to be a natural kind. They explain nothing. Essence is the hallmark of natural kinds. Hmmm.
The
15 ideas
from Michael Devitt
17371
|
Some kinds are very explanatory, but others less so, and some not at all
[Devitt]
|
17372
|
The higher categories are not natural kinds, so the Linnaean hierarchy should be given up
[Devitt]
|
17373
|
Species pluralism says there are several good accounts of what a species is
[Devitt]
|
8501
|
Quineans take predication about objects as basic, not reference to properties they may have
[Devitt]
|
8502
|
Realism doesn't explain 'a is F' any further by saying it is 'a has F-ness'
[Devitt]
|
8503
|
The particular/universal distinction is unhelpful clutter; we should accept 'a is F' as basic
[Devitt]
|
17369
|
We name species as small to share properties, but large enough to yield generalisations
[Devitt]
|
17370
|
Things that gradually change, like species, can still have essences
[Devitt]
|
17367
|
Species are phenetic, biological, niche, or phylogenetic-cladistic
[Devitt, by PG]
|
17368
|
Essentialism concerns the nature of a group, not its category
[Devitt]
|
9354
|
Why should necessities only be knowable a priori? That Hesperus is Phosporus is known empirically
[Devitt]
|
9353
|
We explain away a priori knowledge, not as directly empirical, but as indirectly holistically empirical
[Devitt]
|
9356
|
The idea of the a priori is so obscure that it won't explain anything
[Devitt]
|
19564
|
Some knowledge must be empirical; naturalism implies that all knowledge is like that
[Devitt]
|
19565
|
How could the mind have a link to the necessary character of reality?
[Devitt]
|