more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 6769

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 3. Knowing Kinds ]

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.


The 9 ideas with the same theme [how and how far we can know natural kinds]:

We distinguish species by their nominal essence, not by their real essence [Locke]
You can't base kinds just on resemblance, because chains of resemblance are a muddle [Quine]
There might be uninstantiated natural kinds, such as transuranic elements which have never occurred [Ellis]
Lawlike propensities are enough to individuate natural kinds [Wiggins]
One sample of gold is enough, but one tree doesn't give the height of trees [Gelman]
In the Kripke-Putnam view only nuclear physicists can know natural kinds [Bird]
Darwinism suggests that we should have a native ability to detect natural kinds [Bird]
Explanation by kinds and by clusters of properties just express the stability of reality [Ladyman/Ross]
Natural kinds support inductive inferences, from previous samples to the next one [Koslicki]