Natural Kinds

Natural Kinds #

• Argument: there exists a division between groups defined by nature. Some categorizations are better than others.

  • ex. gold, pyrite should be in different groups

• Counterargument (Goodman): all groups are defined by language and matter of taste. All distinctions are equally valid.

• Example of a “natural kind”: species

• Realism: natural kinds are very sparse and defined by nature (independent of human thought) ← Franklin-Hall

• Anti-realism: natural kinds are defined by human nature/culture ← Goodman

  • The “correct” way to categorize things — Dependent on goals; all humans have the same concepts of categorization

Some categories do not seem to have a “natural” definition — e.g. cookies vs cakes

An Argument for Realism #

• Contention: Realism is true.
  • Scientific progress is sometimes categorical progress (development for better categorization schemes)
    • Periodic table
    • Darwin’s theory of natural selection
  • Realism can explain what categorical progress leads to. Anti-realism cannot.
    • A category is better if it more closely mirrors the natural kinds (according to realism)
    • New category schemes would only be different, not better (according to anti-realism).

An Argument for Anti-Realism #

Category influence hypothesis: Scientific classifications are influenced by the nature of the scientists themselves

once we decide categories, objects can objectively be categorized in this way

Contention: Realism about natural kinds is false.

• If realism is true, we would never know what the natural kinds actually are.
• It doesn’t make sense to talk about which kinds are natural if we’ll never know.

← no independent, valid belief-forming method.

Epistemic Relativism and natural kind anti-realism challenges the objectivity proposed by scientism. #