more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Natural kinds can be associated with 'strong' stereotypes (giving a strong picture of a typical member, like a tiger), or with 'weak' stereotypes (with no idea of a sufficient condition, such as molybdenum or elm).
Gist of Idea
Natural kind stereotypes are 'strong' (obvious, like tiger) or 'weak' (obscure, like molybdenum)
Source
Hilary Putnam (Explanation and Reference [1973], II C)
Book Ref
Putnam,Hilary: 'Mind Language and Reality: Papers vol 2' [CUP 1975], p.205
| 11908 | Putnam bases essences on 'same kind', but same kinds may not share properties [Mackie,P on Putnam] |
| 11904 | Express natural kinds as a posteriori predicate connections, not as singular terms [Putnam, by Mackie,P] |
| 17505 | Using proper names properly doesn't involve necessary and sufficient conditions [Putnam] |
| 17507 | Natural kind stereotypes are 'strong' (obvious, like tiger) or 'weak' (obscure, like molybdenum) [Putnam] |
| 17506 | I now think reference by the tests of experts is a special case of being causally connected [Putnam] |
| 17508 | Science aims at truth, not at 'simplicity' [Putnam] |