more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
In the Kripke-Putnam view, it is very difficult for anyone except nuclear physicists to pick out natural kinds, since everything else is made out of compounds of different isotopes.
Clarification
The Kripke-Putnam view depends on microstructure, not properties
Gist of Idea
In the Kripke-Putnam view only nuclear physicists can know natural kinds
Source
Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.3)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.107
A Reaction
The concept of a rigid 'natural kind' does not have to be sacred. Tin might be considered a natural kind, despite having 21 isotopes. What matters is protons, not the neutrons.
15170 | We distinguish species by their nominal essence, not by their real essence [Locke] |
16937 | You can't base kinds just on resemblance, because chains of resemblance are a muddle [Quine] |
13583 | There might be uninstantiated natural kinds, such as transuranic elements which have never occurred [Ellis] |
11860 | Lawlike propensities are enough to individuate natural kinds [Wiggins] |
15693 | One sample of gold is enough, but one tree doesn't give the height of trees [Gelman] |
6769 | In the Kripke-Putnam view only nuclear physicists can know natural kinds [Bird] |
6774 | Darwinism suggests that we should have a native ability to detect natural kinds [Bird] |
14956 | Explanation by kinds and by clusters of properties just express the stability of reality [Ladyman/Ross] |
13285 | Natural kinds support inductive inferences, from previous samples to the next one [Koslicki] |