Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-zzvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T07:18:27.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Fix Kind Membership: A Problem for HPC Theory and a Solution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Thomas A. C. Reydon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Natural kinds are often contrasted with other kinds of scientific kinds, especially functional kinds, because of a presumed categorical difference in explanatory value: supposedly, natural kinds can ground explanations, while other kinds of kinds cannot. I argue against this view of natural kinds by examining a particular type of explanation—mechanistic explanation—and showing that functional kinds do the same work there as traditionally recognized natural kinds are supposed to do in “standard” scientific explanations. Breaking down this categorical distinction between traditional natural kinds and other kinds of kinds, I argue, delivers two goods: It provides us with a view of natural kindhood that does justice to the epistemic roles of kinds in scientific explanations. And it allows us to solve a problem that HPC theory, currently one of the more popular accounts of natural kindhood, confronts.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , December 2009 , pp. 724 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

Research for this article was supported by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grants RE 2613/1-1 and RE 2613/1-2).

References

Bechtel, William (2006), Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bogen, Jim (2008), “The New Mechanical Philosophy” (essay review of Reasoning in Biological Discoveries: Essays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution by Lindley Darden), Metascience 17:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, Jessica A. (2000), “Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo”, Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo 40:770–776.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard N. (1991), “Realism, Anti-foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds”, Realism, Anti-foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds 61:127–148.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard N. (1999a), “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 141–185.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard N. (1999b), “Kinds, Complexity and Multiple Realization”, Kinds, Complexity and Multiple Realization 95:67–98.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2009), “Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations”, Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations 57:77–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Callebaut, Werner (2005), “The Ubiquity of Modularity”, in Callebaut, Werner and Rasskin-Gutman, Diego (eds.), Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, Paul M. (1985), “Conceptual Progress and Word/World Relations: In Search of the Essence of Natural Kinds”, Conceptual Progress and Word/World Relations: In Search of the Essence of Natural Kinds 15:1–17.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl (2006), “When Mechanistic Models Explain”, When Mechanistic Models Explain 153:355–376.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian (2001), Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1974), “Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)”, Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis) 28:97–115.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E., and Stotz, Karola (2007), “Gene”, in Hull, David L. and Ruse, Michael (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1991), “A Tradition of Natural Kinds”, A Tradition of Natural Kinds 61:109–126.Google Scholar
Ingolia, Nicholas T. (2004), “Topology and Robustness in the Drosophila Segment Polarity Network”, Topology and Robustness in the Drosophila Segment Polarity Network 2:805–815.Google ScholarPubMed
Love, Alan C. (2003), “Evolvability, Dispositions, and Intrinsicality”, Evolvability, Dispositions, and Intrinsicality 70:1015–1027.Google Scholar
Platts, Mark (1983), “Explanatory Kinds”, Explanatory Kinds 34:133–148.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969), “Natural Kinds”, in Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht: Reidel, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydon, Thomas A. C. (2006), “Generalizations and Kinds in Natural Science: The Case of Species”, Generalizations and Kinds in Natural Science: The Case of Species 37:230–255.Google ScholarPubMed
Reydon, Thomas A. C. (2009), “Gene Names as Proper Names of Individuals: An Assessment”, Gene Names as Proper Names of Individuals: An Assessment 60:409–432.Google Scholar
Rieppel, Olivier (2005), “Modules, Kinds, and Homology”, Modules, Kinds, and Homology 304B:18–27.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity”, The Architecture of Complexity 106:467–482.Google Scholar
Skipper, Robert A., and Millstein, Roberta L. (2005), “Thinking about Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection”, Thinking about Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection 36:327–347.Google ScholarPubMed
Von Dassow, George, Meir, Eli, Munro, Ed, and Odell, Garrett M. (2000), “The Segment Polarity Network Is a Robust Developmental Module”, The Segment Polarity Network Is a Robust Developmental Module 406:188–192.Google ScholarPubMed
Von Dassow, George, and Munro, Ed (1999), “Modularity in Animal Development and Evolution: Elements of a Conceptual Framework for EvoDevo”, Modularity in Animal Development and Evolution: Elements of a Conceptual Framework for EvoDevo 285:307–325.Google ScholarPubMed
Waters, C. Kenneth (1994), “Genes Made Molecular”, Genes Made Molecular 61:163–185.Google Scholar