What if reality has no architecture?

The Monist 94 (2):181-197 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show that we can deny that reality is neatly segmented into natural kinds and still give a plausible view about what science is supposed to do – and the way science in fact works does not rely on the dubious metaphysical assumption that reality is segmented into natural kinds. The score is simple: either there are natural kinds or there aren’t. The former view has been the default position in mainstream analytic metaphysics and philosophy of science. I want to put the latter on the table as a metaphysically and scientifically plausible alternative.

Similar books and articles

Antirealism and Artefact Kinds.Marzia Soavi - 2009 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 13 (2):93-107.
Half-naturalized social kinds.Richard W. Miller - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):652.
Natural kinds and freaks of nature.Evan Fales - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (1):67-90.
Natural Kinds: (Thick) Essentialism or Promiscuous Realism?Nigel Leary - 2007 - Philosophical Writings 34 (1):5 - 13.
Do the Life Sciences Need Natural Kinds?Thomas A. C. Reydon - 2009 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):167-190.
Why Hacking is wrong about human kinds.Rachel Cooper - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (1):73-85.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-06

Downloads
705 (#23,662)

6 months
68 (#71,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Bence Nanay
University of Antwerp

Citations of this work

Singularist Semirealism.Bence Nanay - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):371-394.
The Realism of Taxonomic Pluralism.Ka Ho Lam - 2020 - Metaphysics 3 (1):1-16.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Explaining the Success of a Scientific Theory.Timothy D. Lyons - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (5):891-901.

Add more references