Search

This paper argues that a strong-sense Buddhist nominalism, which denies any resemblance between two things, even among natural kinds, fails to explain why names and concepts can successfully identify a group among other things. Drawing evidence from the theory of the three natures in two major Yogācāra texts—the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha—I propose that these two texts affirm the affinity between concepts and things because they hold that it is the utilization of concepts in previous lives that gives rise to our shared world. While rejecting the idea that there is an inherent property or universal shared by natural kinds, these two texts agree that natural kinds are regulated by concepts and therefore share some features from among the set of characteristics defined by those concepts. I therefore propose a weak-sense Buddhist nominalism that endorses the idea that natural kinds share resemblances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simulation theory is a radical and yet increasingly popular view about episodic memory. It is the view that episodic memory and episodic simulation are the same natural kind. I argue that while simulation theory offers an important insight, it also makes an overreach. While episodic memory and episodic simulation likely reflect a common natural kind, they also differ in natural kind. They differ in natural kind because episodic memory is partly defined by projectible properties and memory trace mechanisms that episodic simulation lacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the debate between Basic Emotion Theory (BET) and Psychological Construction Theory (PCT) regarding the nature of emotions, focusing on the challenges PCT poses to BET's claims of universality, discreteness, and biological underpinnings. By examining empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks, this paper argues that the variability in emotional responses, often cited by PCT proponents as a challenge to BET, does not negate the existence of distinct basic emotions with biological foundations. Instead, the paper proposes a refined understanding of BET, emphasizing a causal perspective that focuses on the underlying mechanisms of emotions rather than solely on fixed physiological signatures.

This paper makes a distinction between ahistorical causal-functional kinds and historical kinds, which include both type- and token-historical kinds, some of which are "copied kinds." After showing how these distinctions play out in various social sciences, a number of reasons are put forward for the historical individuation of some social kinds. As in the natural sciences, historical individuation in the social sciences can enable us to infer common causes, explain synchronic causal properties, and discover exceptions to causal regularities, among other epistemic aims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we explore various arguments against the traditional distinction between episodic and semantic memory based on the metaphysical phenomenon of transitional gradation. Transitional gradation occurs when two candidate kinds A and B grade into one another along a continuum according to their characteristic properties. We review two kinds of arguments—from the gradual semanticization of episodic memories as they are consolidated, and from the composition of episodic memories during storage and recall from semantic memories—that predict the proliferation of such transitional forms. We further explain why the distinction cannot be saved from the challenges of transitional gradation by appealing to distinct underlying memory structures and applying our perspective to the impasse over research into 'episodic-like' memory in non-human animals. On the whole, we recommend replacing the distinction with a dynamic life cycle of memory in which a variety of transitional forms will proliferate, and illustrate the utility of this perspective by tying together recent trends in animal episodic memory research and recommending productive future directions. This article is part of the theme issue 'Elements of episodic memory: lessons from 40 years of research'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many psychologists currently assume that there is a psychologically real distinction to be made between concepts that are abstract and concepts that are concrete. It is for example largely agreed that concepts and words are more easily processed if they are concrete. Moreover, it is assumed that this is because these words and concepts are concrete. It is thought that interesting generalizations can be made about certain concepts because they are concrete. I argue that we have surprisingly little reason to believe that the abstract‐concrete distinction is psychologically real. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One way to secure the autonomy of special sciences like psychology is to block reductive strategies by assuming that higher-order properties in psychology are multiply realizable. Multiple realizability would then secure both metaphysical irreducibility and dependency by exploring the variety of ways in which higher-order phenomena can be realized in different systems. Originally, a promising way to understand this variability was in terms of the possible realization role played by property disjunction. However, the non-projectability of disjunctive predicates into explanatory generalizations undermines the multiple realizability strategy mainly because a condition for these generalizations to have scientific weight is that they be based on the existence of natural kinds. Traditionally, disjunctive properties have no reference to kinds. In this paper I explore the character of disjunctive properties as cases of homeostatic property clusters sufficient to be classified as genuine natural kinds, and the consequences for the question of the autonomy of the special sciences.

Cognitive ontology has become a popular topic in philosophy, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience. At its center is the question of which cognitive capacities should be included in the ontology of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. One common strategy for answering this question is to look at brain structures and determine the cognitive capacities for which they are responsible. Some authors interpret this strategy as a search for neural mechanisms, as understood by the so-called new mechanistic approach. In this article, I will show that this new mechanistic answer is confronted with what I call the triviality problem. A discussion of this problem will show that one cannot derive a meaningful cognitive ontology from neural mechanisms alone. Nonetheless, neural mechanisms play a crucial role in the discovery of a cognitive ontology because they are epistemic proxies for best systematizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The label realist in the debate about natural kinds can imply different things. Many authors in this debate subscribe to views that are in some way realist, but without making clear whether the realism in question specifically attaches to kind categories or something else. The traditional understanding of realism about natural kinds is stated in terms of the mind-independence criterion. However, a recent tendency in the debate is to reject this understanding on the ground of its incompatibility with naturalistic approaches to natural kinds. The aim of this paper is to disentangle different meanings attached to the term realism about natural kinds and examine arguments for rejecting the traditional mind-independence framing of the debate. I recommend the reestablishment of mind-independent realism as a legitimate contender for naturalist approaches to natural kinds by indicating that mind-independent realists have at their disposal all the resources to subscribe to such an approach. I proceed by showing how keeping the traditional distinction between realist and antirealist views in terms of mind-independence allows us to keep track of important distinctions between different accounts of natural kinds which are otherwise blurred. Then I examine the arguments against this traditional framing and conclude that they either (1) rest on a conflation between mind-independence of kinds versus entities belonging to kinds, or (2) unjustifiably presuppose that mind-independent realists do not have resources to uphold a naturalistic view of natural kinds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editor's Introduction to the Special Issue 'The Cognitive Ontological Dimensions of Naturalness', including brief introductions of the individual contributions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tradition of natural kinds has shaped philosophical debates about scientific classification but has come under growing criticism. Responding to this criticism, Reydon and Ereshefsky present their grounded functionality account as a strategy for updating and defending the tradition of natural kinds. This article argues that grounded functionality does indeed provide a fruitful philosophical approach to scientific classification but does not convince as a general theory of natural kinds. Instead, the strengths and limitations of Reydon and Ereshefsky's account illustrate why it is time to move beyond general definitions of "natural kind" and experiment with new philosophical frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the debate between Basic Emotion Theory (BET) and Psychological Construction Theory (PCT) regarding the nature of emotions, focusing on the challenges PCT poses to BET's claims of universality, discreteness, and biological underpinnings. By examining empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks, this paper argues that the variability in emotional responses, often cited by PCT proponents as a challenge to BET, does not negate the existence of distinct basic emotions with biological foundations. Instead, the paper proposes a refined understanding of BET, emphasizing a causal perspective that focuses on the underlying mechanisms of emotions rather than solely on fixed physiological signatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are acids natural kinds? Or are they merely relevant kinds? Although acidity has been one of the oldest and most important concepts in chemistry, surprisingly little ink has been spilled on the natural kind question. I approach the question from the perspective of microstructural essentialism. After explaining why both Brønsted acids and Lewis acids are considered functional kinds, I address the challenges of multiple realization and multiple determination. Contra Manafu and Hendry, I argue that the stereotypical properties of acids are not multiply realized. Instead, given the equivalence between the proton-donating and electron-accepting mechanisms of Brønsted and Lewis, respectively, I show that acidity as a property type can be identified with a unique microstructural property, namely the presence of a LUMO or other low energy empty orbital. In doing so, I defend the view that the Lewis theory encompasses Brønsted–Lowry, and that all Brønsted acids are also Lewis acids. Contra Hacking and Chang, I thus maintain that the different concepts of acidity do not crosscut, and that the hierarchy requirement is met. Finally, by characterizing natural kinds as powerful objects and by adopting a dispositional view of functions, I illustrate how the microessentialist can make sense of the latent and relational character of most acids. In sum, I contend that acids are genuine natural kinds, even for the microstructural essentialist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In corvids and apes, cognition evolved convergently instead of being inherited by a shared ancestor. In biology, natural kinds are classified according to common ancestry. So, if we were to apply the same strategy to psychology, cognition among corvids and apes would not be the same natural kind. However, Cameron Buckner claims that cognition is a natural kind. I suggest that by using Ladyman and Ross’s strategy of taking natural kinds as real patterns, we can support that cognition is a natural kind. Cognition seems to have the properties of predictability and compressibility, which are necessary conditions for real patternhood. Thus, convergent evolution examples of cognition, such as that found in corvids and apes, can be the same natural kind.

The essay contains a critique of the metaphysical ways to use of the term ‘person’. Since the term does not designate any natural kind, philosophers must abandon the question ‘what constitutes the continued existence of a person?’. It’s just a bad question. All well-defined questions about identity (‘what is human animal identity?’, ‘what is human mind identity?’, and so on) should formulate only in terms of natural kinds.

The commentators in this Special Issue on 'Epistemology, ontology, and scientific realism' raise substantial questions about, and objections to, central aspects of my own thinking about semirealism (a proposal for how best to formulate scientific realism), as well as the larger philosophical context in which debates about scientific realism unfold. This larger context concerns the nature of realism more generally and the epistemic stances that underlie our considered opinions of what the sciences are telling us about the ontology of the world. In this paper, I consider my critics' remarks, and endeavor to lay their criticisms to rest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the unifying and explanatory power of the selective realism defended by Anjan Chakravartty. Our main aim is twofold. First, we critically analyse the purported synthesis between entity realism and structural realism offered by the author. We give reasons to think that this unification is an inconvenient marriage. In the second step, we deal with certain controversial aspects of the intended unification among three metaphysical concepts: causation, laws of nature and natural kinds. After pointing out that Chakravartty's conception of laws is a plausible view that a scientific realist might endorse, we contend, on the contrary, that the concept of natural kind is dispensable in the framework of Chakravartty's realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The standard strategy involves evaluating whether economic classifications meet criteria derived from a general theory of natural kinds. The first objective of this article is to show the implementation of this strategy by various relevant authors. We argue that the standard strategy has failed due to its lack of a greater sensitivity to the role played by human interests in the design of different types of natural kinds. The second objective is to outline a new strategy for investigating economic classifications. Our departure from the standard strategy can be described as a shift from assessing economic classifications based on general theories of natural kinds to examining specific cases with the aim of theorizing about their design and application. The cases of the cost-of-living index and race are used to succinctly discuss the objectivity of economic classifications and implications for the relationship between science and democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some plausibly necessary a posteriori theoretical claims include 'water is H2O', 'gold is the element with atomic number 79', and 'cats are animals'. In this paper I challenge the necessity of the third claim. I argue that there are possible worlds in which cats exist, but are not animals. Under any of the species concepts currently accepted in biology, organisms do not belong essentially to their species. This is equally true of their ancestors. In phylogenetic systematics, monophyletic clades such as the animal kingdom are composed of an ancestral stem species and all of its descendants. If the stem species had not existed, neither would the clade. Thus it could have been the case that all the organisms which actually belong to the animal kingdom might have existed yet not have been animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses a set of ideological tensions involving the classification of agential kinds, which I see as the methodological and conceptual core of the sentience discourse. Specifically, I consider ideals involved in the classification of biological and artifactual kinds, and ideals related to agency, identity, and value. These ideals frame the background against which sentience in Artificial Intelligence (AI) is theorized and debated, a framework I call the AIdeal. To make this framework explicit, I review the historical discourse on sentience as it appears in ancient, early modern, and the 20th century philosophy, paying special attention to how these ideals are projected onto artificial agents. I argue that tensions among these ideals create conditions where artificial sentience is both necessary and impossible, resulting in a crisis of ideology. Moving past this crisis does not require a satisfying resolution among competing ideals, but instead requires a shift in focus to the material conditions and actual practices in which these ideals operate. Following Charles Mills, I sketch a nonideal approach to AI and artificial sentience that seeks to loosen the grip of ideology on the discourse. Specifically, I propose a notion of participation that deflates the sentience discourse in AI and shifts focus to the material conditions in which sociotechnical networks operate.

An essence is the intuitable objective correspondent of a concept. Phenomenology is the science of these objects and the science about them. But is it possible for every concept to have an essence? This question is a crucial one since any concept without essence would be eliminated from phenomenology. The phenomenological meaning of such concepts would be a challenge. Excluding a subject matter from phenomenology is a consequence of the refusal to achieve a solid mindset about it because of the infeasibility of intuiting it clearly and distinctly. As a result, such a concept would be ambiguous, inconsistent, or incomprehensible and every conceptualization or standpoint about it would be ultimately an arbitrary appropriation. Arbitrariness here can mean insisting on a metaphysical and, of course, unreasonable position, a collective (cultural) belief, or a personal or artistic attitude. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with our expectation of phenomenology as an all-encompassing science that some categories could be identified outside of its domain. Notwithstanding, this ideation tends to be problematic and disputable for some categories. This possibility has been questioned for theoretical concepts, natural kinds, cultural concepts, and transcendent universals in one or another way. After elaborating on these problems, we attempt to figure them out. These criticisms have failed to comply with the phenomenological epoché, the unreality of the transcendental area, and the solipsistic nature of phenomenological research. Their failure is caused by relying on science in phenomenological research. According to our observations, intuiting an essence simply means determining an individual object’s belonging to the corresponding universal concept. Thus, the impossibility of ideation for a category implies that it is impossible to determine whether any individual object falls under the aforementioned category, while all the discussed criticisms acknowledge that determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent article, David Ludwig proposed to reorient the debate on natural kinds away from inquiring into the naturalness of kinds and toward elucidating the materiality of kinds. This article responds to Ludwig's critique of a recently proposed account of kinds and classification, the Grounded Functionality Account, against which Ludwig offsets his own account, and criticizes Ludwig's proposal to shift focus from naturalness to materiality in the philosophy of kinds and classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response to three critiques of my book, Cognitive ontology, I expand on some of its main themes. First, I demarcate the domain of cognition to support my claim that it is properly investigated from Marr's computational level. Then, I defend the claim that cognitive kinds ought to be individuated externalistically, by contrast with neural kinds, which are often individuated internalistically. This implies that the relationship between the cognitive sciences is one of delivering mutual constraints, which is a more productive research strategy than the search for "neural correlates" of cognitive constructs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Muhammad Ali Khalidi contends that because cognitive science casts a wider net than neuroscience in searching for the causes of cognition, it is in the superior position to discover "real" cognitive kinds. I argue that while Khalidi identifies appropriate norms for individuating cognitive kinds, these norms ground his characterization of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, rather than the other way around. If we instead treat Khalidi's norms not as descriptively accurate characterizations of taxonomic practices in cognitive science, but as a set of best practices for kinding cognition, is cognitive science in and neuroscience definitively out of the cognitive kinding game? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophers have often debated the truth of microstructural essentialism about chemical substances: whether or not the structure of a chemical substance at the molecular scale is what makes it the substance it is. Oddly they have tended to pursue this debate without identifying what a structure is, and with some confusion and about what a chemical substance is. In this paper I draw on chemistry to rectify those omissions, providing a pluralist account of structure, clarifying what (according to chemistry) a chemical substance is and defending microstructural essentialism, as I understand that position. I then give an account of the existence of composite substances and objects in chemistry, an issue that goes back to Aristotle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disease debate in philosophy of medicine has traditionally been billed as a debate over the correct conceptual analysis of the term “disease.” This paper argues that although the debate’s participants overwhelmingly claim to be in the business of conceptual analysis, they do not tend to argue as if this is the case. In particular, they often show a puzzling disregard for key parameters such as precise terminology, linguistic community, and actual usage. This prima facie strange feature of the debate points to an interesting and potentially instructive hypothesis: the disease debate makes little sense within the paradigm of conceptual analysis but makes good sense on the assumption that pathology is a real kind.

There is an essentialist view that requires one to specify the set of necessary and sufficient properties of the things that exist when establishing definitions. The endorsement of essentialism for definitions in economics has been largely motivated by the Taxonomic Tower of Babel (TTB), which encompasses two intellectual fears. The fear of scientific aphasia is the fear that scientific progress is hampered because economists do not agree on the definitions they use. The fear of nihilism refers to the fear of the advent of an unmanageable proliferation of definitions of the same term. We advocate the abandonment of essentialism by offering three arguments. First, essentialism seems impracticable in economics because essences are either mostly unavailable or useless. Second, the TTB, rather than a bug, is a feature of economics. Third, the TTB does not necessarily display the negative implications presumably associated with its existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies Robert Boyle's account of kinds and classification. A number of commentators have argued that, for Boyle, classifications are inevitably the product of conventions. Others have challenged this reading, arguing that, according to Boyle, the corpuscular makeup of bodies gives rise to hard-edged natural kinds and classes. We argue that Boyle's position is more complicated than the available realist and conventionalist readings acknowledge. We argue that, according to Boyle, the individuation of kinds was to some degree the result of convention. At the same time, however, Boyle held that our classificatory practices are subject to constraints. We identify some of these constraints by turning to Boyle's discussion of the late scholastic debate about the plurality of forms, in particular the contributions of Jacopo Zabarella and Daniel Sennert. In this way, we clarify how Boyle strikes a balance between realist and conventionalist elements in his treatment of kinds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay presents various reflections on living systems, what they are and how they evolve, prompted by editing Teleonomy in Living Systems (a special issue of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society). Conclusions include the suggestion that the linked notions of teleonomy and agency represent fundamental properties of matter that become apparent only when organized in the way that we consider to be that of a living system. As such, they are factors that form part of the intrinsic 'a priori' of living systems, as they evolve in form through space and time. Biology, the science of life and living systems, needs to be 'biological' if it is to be anything at all. Understanding the role of teleonomy (internal, inherent goal-seeking) will always play a necessary part in this endeavour: teleonomy represents one of the fundamental properties of living systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our goal is to analyze the distinction between factual statements and opinions from a philosophical—specifically an epistemological—perspective. Section 1 reviews the most common criteria for drawing the distinction, which while inadequate, as explained in Section 2, still plays an important cultural and political role. In Section 3, we argue that the difference between factual statements and opinions does not involve a single criterion. Instead, the conceptual structure of the terms ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ is analogous to that of natural kinds—terms with multiple dimensions. We expect that improved theory will lead to improvements in pedagogy, decision-making, and public discourse. But these consequences are not our chief focus.

Compositionalists hold that God the Son became human by acquiring all the parts that ordinarily compose a human being (his 'human nature'). To be orthodox, though, they must deny that Christ's human nature is a person, even though it has all the parts that human persons ordinarily have. One way to do this is by appealing to the principle that no member of a natural kind can have another member of the same kind as a proper part. Since Christ is a person, he cannot have another person as a part, so if his human nature is a part of him, it cannot be a person. This principle is defended on the grounds that it can resolve metaphysical problems involving apparently multiple individuals of the same natural kind that share the same space. I argue that this is a weak strategy. First, it leaves unanswered key questions about how and why the principle applies to the incarnation. Second, counter-examples to the principle exist, suggesting that it is not true. Third, there is a better solution to the kinds of metaphysical paradoxes for which this principle is usually invoked, but this solution cannot be applied to the case of Christ. Consequently, compositionalists should not rely on this principle as a means of avoiding Nestorianism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the growing number of proposals defining life, the difficulties in reaching a minimum consensus when defining it have been increasing. These problems have led a significant number of authors to consider that life cannot be defined. However, such criticisms are based on the idea of life as an essentialist natural kind. On the other hand, there are non-essentialist alternatives when defining life, which are frequently ignored by critics. Among these proposals, it will be shown that considering life as a promiscuous natural kind can solve some of the difficulties with the concept of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new research programme conceives of consciousness as a natural kind. One proposed virtue of this approach is that it can help resolve the methodological puzzle of consciousness, which involves distinguishing consciousness from cognitive access. The present article raises a novel problem for this approach. The problem is rooted in the fact that there may be episodes of conscious experience that have not been classified as such. I argue that conceiving of consciousness as a natural kind cannot distinguish consciousness from cognitive access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many philosophers attribute extraordinary importance to the idea of natural kinds seemingly intimating that the very possibility of certain kinds of activity are ontologically beholden to the existence of kinds. Specifically, regarding chemistry, Brian Ellis intimated that the success of any plausible metaphysical essentialism depends upon its "reliance on examples from chemistry." Ellis's view is representative of a tradition in analytic philosophy that has utilized chemical examples as paradigmatic natural kinds. In this regard, Kripke and Putnam emerge as the architects of an entrenched research program dedicated to the chemical tradition of natural kinds in analytic philosophy. The emergence of a critical body of literature by philosophers of chemistry and others has shattered the complacent reliance upon chemical examples as exemplary kinds. On the basis of this emerging critical literature, I will critically explore the way in which chemical practice and inquiry affects the natural kind debate. So, instead of the pretense that we simply carve nature at its joints, we need to become better grounded in the practice of science, and especially with regard to the debate about natural kinds in chemical practice. Consistent with this orientation, we need to make the practice turn, that is, eradicate the fantasy of logical reconstruction and become involved with the interpretative and historical challenges of understanding the nuances of practice. The point here is quite clear, metaphysical questions regarding natural kind should be imminent to scientific practice. Indeed, any legitimate metaphysics of natural kinds should be appropriately informed and grounded in practice and not operate on the basis of a priori sovereignty. I will insert this critical discussion within the analytical context of the notion of interpretive communities and make the case that philosophers should not assume that appeals to the purity of philosophy can substitute for the complexity and practical orientation of chemical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some species have held fast for millions of years as constants in a changing world. Often called “living fossils,” these species capture scientific and public interest by showing us the vestiges of an earlier world. If living fossils are defined by a holistic pattern of low evolutionary rates or stasis, however, then classifying a species as a living fossil involves the application of sophisticated norms of scientific evidence. Using examples from Crocodilia and the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), I show how scientists’ evidential criteria for classifying living fossils are contentious and underspecified in many cases, threatening the concept’s explanatory interest and its adequacy for sustaining a collective problem agenda as proposed by Scott Lidgard and Alan Love. While debates over the definition of the living fossil concept may appear fruitless, I suggest they can be productive insofar as the debate leads to clarified and improved evidential standards for classification. To this end, I formulate a view of the living fossil concept as an investigative kind, and compare two theoretical frameworks as a basis for shared evidential norms: the Zero Force Evolutionary Law framework, introduced by Daniel McShea and Robert Brandon, and the statistical model selection framework first developed by Gene Hunt in the 2000s.

The notion of natural kinds has been widely criticized in philosophy of science but also appears indispensable for philosophical engagement with classificatory practices. Rather than addressing this tension through a new definition of "natural kind", this article suggests materiality as a substitute for naturalness in philosophical debates about scientific classification. It is argued that a theory of material kinds provides an alternative and more inclusive entry point for analyzing classificatory practices, which is specified through an account of "restricted malleability" of materiality and further analyzed as (1) gradual, (2) multi-dimensional, (3) scalable, (4) interactive, and (5) purpose sensitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theoreticians that defend a form of realism regarding natural kinds minimally entertain the belief that the world features divisions into kinds and that the natural kind concept is a useful tool for philosophy of science. The objective of this paper is to challenge these assumptions. First, we challenge realism toward natural kinds by showing that the main arguments for their existence, which rely on the epistemic success of natural kinds, are unsatisfactory. Second, we show that, whether they exist or not, natural kinds are expendable when it comes to describing and analyzing scientific explanations accurately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, accounts of natural kinds have run the gamut from strongly conventionalist to strongly realist views. Recently, however, there has been a significant shift toward more conventionalist-sounding positions, even (perhaps especially) among philosophers interested in scientific classification. The impetus for this is a trend toward making anthropocentric features of categories, namely, capacities to facilitate human epistemic (and other) interests via inductive inference, central to an account of kinds. I argue that taking these features seriously is both defensible and compatible with conventionalism, but not compatible with a traditional realism about kinds specifically. Moreover, hopes of achieving compatibility by revising and extending kind realism—into what I call "hyperrealism"—face an insuperable dilemma. The news for realists is not all bad, however: though kind realism proves untenable, closely associated realisms underlying the objectivity of kind discourse may be viable nonetheless. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Artefactos: Revista de Estudios Sobre La Ciencia Y La Tecnologia is the property of Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)