more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 18891

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 5. Reference to Natural Kinds ]

Full Idea

There seems to be nothing in the theory of direct reference to block the anti-essentialist assertion that the substance water might have been the very same entity and yet have had a different chemical structure.

Gist of Idea

Nothing in the direct theory of reference blocks anti-essentialism; water structure might have been different

Source

Nathan Salmon (Reference and Essence (1st edn) [1981], 6.23.1)

Book Ref

Salmon,Nathan: 'Reference and Essence (2nd ed)' [Prometheus 2005], p.186


A Reaction

Indeed, water could be continuously changing its inner structure, while retaining the surface appearance that gets baptised as 'water'. We make the reasonable empirical assumption, though, that structure-change implies surface-change.


The 13 ideas with the same theme [how language terms refer to natural kinds]:

The names of all the types of creature were given forever by Adam [Anon (Tor)]
Express natural kinds as a posteriori predicate connections, not as singular terms [Putnam, by Mackie,P]
Natural kind stereotypes are 'strong' (obvious, like tiger) or 'weak' (obscure, like molybdenum) [Putnam]
"Water" is a natural kind term, but "H2O" is a description [Putnam]
The cause of a usage determines meaning, but why is the microstructure of water relevant? [Davidson]
The properties that fix reference are contingent, the properties involving meaning are necessary [Kripke]
Terms for natural kinds are very close to proper names [Kripke]
Nothing in the direct theory of reference blocks anti-essentialism; water structure might have been different [Salmon,N]
Nouns seem to invoke stable kinds more than predicates do [Gelman]
Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name [Bird]
Jadeite and nephrite are superficially identical, but have different composition [Bird]
Reference to scientific terms is by explanatory role, not by descriptions [Bird]
Should vernacular classifications ever be counted as natural kind terms? [Koslicki]