display all the ideas for this combination of texts
9 ideas
17381 | Phylogenetics involves history, and cladism rests species on splits in lineage [Dupré] |
Full Idea: The phylogenetic conception of classification reflects the facts of evolutionary history. Cladism insists that every taxonomic distinction should reflect an evolutionary event of lineage bifurcation. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 1) | |
A reaction: Devitt attacks cladism nicely. It rules out species change without bifurcation, and it insists on species change even in a line which remains unchanged after a split. |
17385 | Kinds don't do anything (including evolve) because they are abstract [Dupré] |
Full Idea: A kind, being an abstract object, cannot do anything, including evolve. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 2) | |
A reaction: Maybe. We might have an extensional view of the kind, so that 'gold' is the set of extant gold atoms. But possible gold atoms are also gold, and defunct ones too. Virtually every word in English is abtract if you think about it long enough. |
17375 | Natural kinds are decided entirely by the intentions of our classification [Dupré] |
Full Idea: The question of which natural kind a thing belongs to ....can be answered only in relation to some specification of the goal underlying the intent to classify the object. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], Intro) | |
A reaction: I don't think I believe this. The situation is complex, and our intents are relevant, but to find an intent which no longer classifies tigers into the same category is wilful silliness. |
17379 | Borders between species are much less clear in vegetables than among animals [Dupré] |
Full Idea: The richest source of illustrations is the vegetable kingdom, where specific differences tend to be much less clear than among animals, and considerable developmental plasticity is the rule. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 1) | |
A reaction: Nice. Just as the idea that laws of nature are mathematical suits physics, but founders on biology, so natural kinds founder in an area of biology to which we pay less attention. He cites prickly pears and lilies. I'm thinking oranges, satsumas etc. |
17384 | Even atoms of an element differ, in the energy levels of their electrons [Dupré] |
Full Idea: Even if we claim that it is really isotopes not atoms that are the natural kinds (thus divorcing chemistry from ordinary language), atoms are said to differ with respect to such features as energy levels of the electrons. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 2) | |
A reaction: So we can't just pick out the features of one atom, and say that is the essence. Essence always involves some selection. I say the essence arises from the explanation of the atom's behaviour. |
17387 | Ecologists favour classifying by niche, even though that can clash with genealogy [Dupré] |
Full Idea: To the extent that the occupants of a particular niche do not coincide with the members of a particular genealogical line, a possibility widely acknowledged to occur, ecologists must favour a method of classification lacking genealogical grounding. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 2) | |
A reaction: Zoo keepers probably classify by cages, or which zoo owns what, but that doesn't mean that they reject genealogy. Don't assume ecologists are rejecting any underlying classification that differs from theirs. Compare classification by economists. |
17380 | Wales may count as fish [Dupré] |
Full Idea: The claim that whales are not fish is a debatable one | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 1) | |
A reaction: A very nice challenge to an almost unquestioned orthodoxy. |
17382 | Cooks, unlike scientists, distinguish garlic from onions [Dupré] |
Full Idea: It would be a severe culinary misfortune if no distinction were drawn between garlic and onions, a distinction that is not reflected in scientific taxonomy. | |
From: John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 1) | |
A reaction: Not every persuasive. We distinguish some cows from others because they taste better, but no one thinks that is a serious way in which to classify cows. |
16547 | H2O isn't necessary, because different laws of nature might affect how O and H combine [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It is not metaphysically necessary that water is composed of H2O molecules, because the natural laws governing the chemical behaviour of hydrogen and oxygen atoms could have been significantly different, so they might not have composed that substance. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (What is the Source of Knowledge of Modal Truths? [2013], 6) | |
A reaction: I fear this may be incoherent, as science. See Bird on why salt must dissolve in water. There can't (I suspect) be a law which keeps O and H the same, and yet makes them combine differently. |