Ideas from 'Natural Kinds and Biological Realism' by Michael Devitt [2009], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Putting Metaphysics First' by Devitt,Michael [OUP 2010,978-0-19-957697-5]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 1. Natural Kinds
Some kinds are very explanatory, but others less so, and some not at all
                        Full Idea: Explanatory significance, hence naturalness, comes in degrees: positing some kinds may be very explanatory, positing others, only a little bit explanatory, positing others still, not explanatory at all.
                        From: Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 4)
                        A reaction: He mentions 'cousin' as a natural kind that is not very explanatory of anything. It interests us as humans, but not at all in other animals, it seems. ...Nice thought, though, that two squirrels might be cousins...
27. Natural Reality / G. Biology / 5. Species
The higher categories are not natural kinds, so the Linnaean hierarchy should be given up
                        Full Idea: The signs are that the higher categories are not natural kinds and so the Linnaean hierarchy must be abandoned. ...This is not abandoning a hierarchy altogether, it is not abandoning a tree of life.
                        From: Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 6)
                        A reaction: Devitt's underlying point is that the higher and more general kinds do not have an essence (a specific nature), which is the qualification to be a natural kind. They explain nothing. Essence is the hallmark of natural kinds. Hmmm.
Species pluralism says there are several good accounts of what a species is
                        Full Idea: Species pluralism is the view that there are several equally good accounts of what it is to be a species.
                        From: Michael Devitt (Natural Kinds and Biological Realism [2009], 7)
                        A reaction: Devitt votes for it, and cites Dupré, among many other. Given the existence of rival accounts, all making good points, it is hard to resist this view.