structure for 'Natural Theory'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / d. Knowing essences

[whether we can know essences, and if so, how]

15 ideas
Scientists must know the essential attributes of the things they study [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: It would be strange for a natural scientist to know what the sun and the moon are, but to be completely ignorant about their necessary attributes.
     From: Aristotle (Physics [c.337 BCE], 193b27)
     A reaction: This nicely captures the common sense idea of essentialism - that we must know the essential features of things, and ignore the incidental ones (like sunspots, or phases of the moon).
No one even knows the nature and properties of a fly - why it has that colour, or so many feet [Bacon,R]
     Full Idea: No one is so wise regarding the natural world as to know with certainty all the truths that concern the nature and properties of a single fly, or to know the proper causes of its color and why it has so many feet, neither more nor less.
     From: Roger Bacon (Opus Maius (major works) [1254], I.10), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 23.6
     A reaction: Pasnau quotes this in the context of 'occult' qualities. It is scientific essentialism, because Bacon clearly takes it that the explanation of these things would be found within the essence of the fly, if we could only get at it.
We identify substances by supposing that groups of sensations arise from an essence [Locke]
     Full Idea: We come to have the ideas of particular sorts of substance, by collecting such combinations of simple ideas as are by observation of men's senses taken notice of to exist together, and are supposed to flow from the unknown essence of that substance.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.23.03)
     A reaction: Locke is notoriously somewhat ambiguous and unclear about some of his views, but this remark seems to make him the father of modern scientific essentialism. Note that this is an empiricist happily referring to an unperceived best explanation.
Other spirits may exceed us in knowledge, by knowing the inward constitution of things [Locke]
     Full Idea: Other spirits, who see and know the nature and inward constitution of things, how much must they exceed us in knowledge?
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 4.03.06)
     A reaction: I take it that Locke was describing his own posterity, without realising it. It seems to me that modern physics has reached a place which Locke firmly pronounced impossible for human beings, and it has revealed many 'inward constitutions'.
By digging deeper into the axioms we approach the essence of sciences, and unity of knowedge [Hilbert]
     Full Idea: By pushing ahead to ever deeper layers of axioms ...we also win ever-deeper insights into the essence of scientific thought itself, and become ever more conscious of the unity of our knowledge.
     From: David Hilbert (Axiomatic Thought [1918], [56])
     A reaction: This is the less fashionable idea that scientific essentialism can also be applicable in the mathematic sciences, centring on the project of axiomatisation for logic, arithmetic, sets etc.
Real essences are scientifically knowable, but so are non-essential properties [Copi]
     Full Idea: Contrary to Locke, I should hold that real essences are in principle knowable, and contrary to Aristotle, I should hold that non-essential or accidental properties can also be objects of scientific knowledge.
     From: Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.717)
     A reaction: Copi has just become my hero. Aristotle's account of definition is on the brink of allowing fine-tuned essences, but he thinks universal understanding blocks knowledge of individuals. But cross-referencing of universals pinpoints individuals.
Without general principles, we couldn't predict the behaviour of dispositional properties [Ellis]
     Full Idea: It is objected to dispositionalism that without the principle of least action, or some general principle of equal power, the specific dispositional properties of things could tell us very little about how these things would be disposed to behave.
     From: Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 90)
     A reaction: Ellis attempts to meet this criticism, by placing dispositional properties within a hierarchy of broader properties. There remains a nagging doubt about how essentialism can account for space, time, order, and the existence of essences.
Essentialism requires a clear separation of semantics, epistemology and ontology [Ellis]
     Full Idea: Scientific essentialism requires that philosophers distinguish clearly between semantic issues, epistemological issues, and ontological issues.
     From: Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.7)
     A reaction: Music to my ears - but then I think everyone should require that of philosophers, because it where they get themselves most confused. The trouble is that ontology is only obtainable epistemologically, and only expressible semantically.
It looks as if the immutability of the powers of a property imply essentiality [Shoemaker]
     Full Idea: There is a prima facie case for saying that the immutability of the causal potentialities of a property implies their essentiality. ...If they cannot vary across time, they also cannot vary across possible worlds.
     From: Sydney Shoemaker (Causality and Properties [1980], §05)
     A reaction: This is only the beginning of scientific essentialism, but one of the targets is to save the phenomena. It is also involves unimaginability (of different powers from a given property) implying necessity.
Science searches basic structures in search of essences [Kripke]
     Full Idea: Science attempts, by investigating basic structural traits, to find the nature, and thus the essence (in the philosophical sense) of the kind.
     From: Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity lectures [1970], Lecture 3)
     A reaction: The 'necessity' of essences should be treated with caution, but this account of science strikes me as right, with the inbuilt assumption that the 'laws' are the consequence of the essences. A regularity becomes a law when it is explained by an essence.
Find the essence by varying an object, to see what remains invariable [Velarde-Mayol]
     Full Idea: Eidetic Reduction consists of producing variations in the individual object until we see what is invariable in it. What is invariable is its essence or Eidos.
     From: Victor Velarde-Mayol (On Husserl [2000], 3.2.2)
     A reaction: This strikes me as an excellent idea. It more or less describes the method of science. Chemical atoms were thought to be unsplittable, until someone tried a new variation for dealing with them.
Some dispositions are so far unknown, until we learn how to manifest them [Mumford]
     Full Idea: It seems reasonable to assume that there are some dispositions of some things of which we are not aware because we have not yet discovered the way to get these dispositions to manifest.
     From: Stephen Mumford (Dispositions [1998], 03.7)
     A reaction: This strikes me as a pretty good description of what scientists are currently doing when, for example, they build a new particle accelerator.
To distinguish accidental from essential properties, we must include possible members of kinds [Mumford]
     Full Idea: Where properties are possessed by all kind members, we must distinguish the accidental from essential ones by considering all actual and possible kind members.
     From: Stephen Mumford (Laws in Nature [2004], 07.5)
     A reaction: This is why we must treat possibilities as features of the actual world.
Essentialism starts from richly structured categories, leading to a search for underlying properties [Gelman]
     Full Idea: If my speculations are correct, then essentialism starts out strictly as a belief that many categories are richly structured kinds, then additionally becomes a search for underlying inherent properties.
     From: Susan A. Gelman (The Essential Child [2003], 10 'Figuring')
     A reaction: This is her summary of extensive essentialist research among children. She favours the priority of kinds and categories. We actually change taxonomies on the basis of revisions in our accounts of essence. Science negotiates.
If flame colour is characteristic of a metal, that is an empirical claim needing justification [Bird]
     Full Idea: I might say that flame colours are a characteristic feature of metals, but this is an empirical proposition which is in part about the unobserved, and stands in need of justification.
     From: Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.5)
     A reaction: This draws attention to the fact that essentialism is not just a metaphysical theory, but is also part of the scientific enterprise. Among things to research about metals is the reason why they have a characteristic flame.