more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17379

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 7. Critique of Kinds ]

Full Idea

The richest source of illustrations is the vegetable kingdom, where specific differences tend to be much less clear than among animals, and considerable developmental plasticity is the rule.

Gist of Idea

Borders between species are much less clear in vegetables than among animals

Source

John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 1)

Book Ref

Dupré,John: 'The Disorder of Things' [Harvard 1995], p.27


A Reaction

Nice. Just as the idea that laws of nature are mathematical suits physics, but founders on biology, so natural kinds founder in an area of biology to which we pay less attention. He cites prickly pears and lilies. I'm thinking oranges, satsumas etc.


The 12 ideas with the same theme [objections to dividing nature into 'kinds']:

Natural kinds are not special; they are just well-defined resemblance collections [Abelard, by King,P]
If there are borderline cases between natural kinds, that makes them superficial [Ellis]
Generalised talk of 'natural kinds' is unfortunate, as they vary too much [Dummett]
Nominal essence may well be neither necessary nor sufficient for a natural kind [Kripke, by Bird]
Species do not have enough constancy to be natural kinds [Harré/Madden]
Natural kinds are decided entirely by the intentions of our classification [Dupré]
Wales may count as fish [Dupré]
Cooks, unlike scientists, distinguish garlic from onions [Dupré]
Borders between species are much less clear in vegetables than among animals [Dupré]
Even atoms of an element differ, in the energy levels of their electrons [Dupré]
Ecologists favour classifying by niche, even though that can clash with genealogy [Dupré]
Natural kinds are social institutions [Kusch]