Ethnobiological kinds and material grounding: comments on Ludwig-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Ethnobiological kinds and material grounding: comments on Ludwig

Published:2024-02-05 Issue:1 Volume:14 Page:
ISSN:1879-4912
Container-title:European Journal for Philosophy of Science
language:en
Short-container-title:Euro Jnl Phil Sci

Author:

Reydon Thomas A. C.^ORCID,Ereshefsky Marc

Abstract

AbstractIn 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.

Funder

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Link

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13194-024-00568-7.pdf

Reference12 articles.

1. Basri, G., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Planetesimals to brown dwarfs: What is a planet? Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science, 34, 193–216.

2. Bokulich, A. (2014). Pluto and the ‘planet problem’: Folk concepts and natural kinds in astronomy. Perspectives on Science, 22, 464–490.

3. Cuypers, V., & Reydon, T. A. C. (2023). An oak is an oak, or not? Understanding and dealing with confusion and disagreement in biological classification. Biology & Philosophy, 38, 39.

4. Ereshefsky, M. (2010). Darwin’s solution to the species problem. Synthese, 175, 405–425.

5. Ereshefsky, M. (2018). Natural kinds, mind independence, and defeasibility. Philosophy of Science, 85, 845–856.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Philosophy without natural kinds: a reply to Reydon & Ereshefsky;European Journal for Philosophy of Science;2024-07-27