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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Species taxa can count as natural kinds even under a relaxed conception of natural kinds

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Species lack stable homeostatic property clusters because evolutionary pressures continuously dissolve and reconstitute trait correlations across populations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A kind concept that cannot ground stable inductive projections fails the core epistemological function natural kinds are invoked to perform.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, 'relaxing' natural kind criteria to accommodate species sacrifices the very explanatory utility the relaxed conception claims to preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Species are spatiotemporally restricted lineages individuated by genealogical descent, making them historical particulars rather than repeatable types.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ereshefsky and Matthen argue that if species are individuals in Ghiselin's sense, predicating kind-membership of organisms is a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reuniting taxonomic and explanatory criteria under a relaxed kind concept conceals this ontological equivocation rather than resolving it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The traditional concept of natural kinds requires instantiation of intrinsic, necessary, sufficient, and spatiotemporally unrestricted properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A relaxed concept of natural kinds drops those strict requirements while still supporting causal explanations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under such a relaxed concept, taxonomic and explanatory criteria can be reunited
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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