more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The nominal essence of a natural kind K consists of those features a thing must have to deserve the name 'a K' by virtue of the meaning of that name.
Gist of Idea
Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name
Source
Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.99
A Reaction
Some people think 'nominal essence' is the only essence there is, which would make it relative to human languages. The rival view is that there are 'real essences'. I favour the latter view.
| 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] |