Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If individualism about species is correct, it is less pla... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If individualism about species is correct, it is less plausible that species-kinds play a role in laws of nature

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Laws of nature must support counterfactuals across nomically possible worlds, requiring kind-membership conditions that are stable under variation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under Ghiselin-Hull biological individualism, species are historical lineages whose membership is determined by genealogical-causal relations, not by stable qualitative properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kind-membership conditions grounded solely in contingent historical-causal relations cannot underwrite the cross-world stability that counterfactual-supporting laws require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong and Dretske's nomic necessitation framework requires that natural kinds be defined by intrinsic, repeatable universals that can enter into second-order relations with other universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Individualism about species, as advanced by Ghiselin and Hull, entails that species are particulars rather than universals, making them categorically ineligible to serve as relata in nomic necessitation relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A category of entity that is metaphysically barred from entering nomic necessitation relations cannot play the role of a kind in laws of nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kind membership under the individualist-compatible account is defined relationally, not intrinsically
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kinds that play a role in laws of nature are typically thought to require intrinsic membership conditions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A category of entity that is metaphysically barred from entering nomic necessita...Armstrong and Dretske's nomic necessitation framework requires that natural kind...Individualism about species, as advanced by Ghiselin and Hull, entails that spec...Kind membership under the individualist-compatible account is defined relational...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kind-membership conditions grounded solely in contingent historical-causal relat...Kinds that play a role in laws of nature are typically thought to require intrin...Laws of nature must support counterfactuals across nomically possible worlds, re...Under Ghiselin-Hull biological individualism, species are historical lineages wh...

    Similar

    If individualism about species is correct, kind membership cannot be n...87%If species are individuals, intrinsic properties cannot individuate th...83%Individualism about species and the view that species are natural kind...83%If species are individuals, then species membership cannot be determin...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: natural-kinds
    View source passageHide passage
    Does individualism about species imply that species are not natural kinds? One might suspect as much, but perhaps the two views are compatible. LaPorte (2004), for example, believes that one can consistently hold both views. Where one theorist will see a species-as-kind and an organism-as-member of that kind, another theorist will see a species-as-individual and an organism-as-part of that kind. And so even allowing that individualism is correct, we can construct a kind: if S is a species-indivi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit