Carving Nature at the Joints

Bibliographic Data

ID10706204
AuthorsMuhammad Ali Khalidi (0009-0002-2652-8463, corresponding author)
Year1993
Volume60
Issue1
Pages100-113
Publication date1993-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhilosophy of Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8248 • E-ISSN: 1539-767X
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1086/289720
OpenAlexW2005855313
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited5

This paper discusses a philosophical issue in taxonomy. At least one philosopher has suggested the taxonomic principle that scientific kinds are disjoint. An opposing position is defended here by marshalling examples of nondisjoint categories which belong to different, coexisting classification schemes. This denial of the disjointness principle can be recast as the claim that scientific classification is “interest-relative”. But why would anyone have held that scientific categories are disjoint in the first place? It is argued that this assumption is needed in one attempt to derive essentialism. This shows why the essentialist and interest-relative approaches to classification are in conflict

Carving · Denial · Discrete mathematics · Disjoint sets · Epistemology · Equivalence (formal languages) · Essentialism · Linguistics · Marshalling · Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies · Computer Science · History · Mathematics · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Psychology · Science and Climate Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub