On Chemical Natural Kinds
- PDF / 697,699 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 51 Downloads / 187 Views
On Chemical Natural Kinds Eric R. Scerri1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract A critique of LaPorte’s views on chemical kinds, like jade and ruby, is presented. More positively, a new slant is provided on the question of whether elements are natural kinds. This is carried out by appeal to the dual nature of elements, a topic that has been debated in the philosophy of chemistry but not in the natural kinds literature. It is claimed that the abstract notion of elements, as opposed to their being simple substances, is relevant to the Kripke–Putnam approach to natural kinds and to some criticisms that have been raised against it, although I do not support the K–P account. The proposed view avoids the traditional microstructuralist approach to natural kinds. The article also addresses the question of whether natural kinds concern metaphysical or epistemological considerations. Recent attempts by chemists to modify the periodic table are brought to bear on the question of classification and consequently on whether the identification of elements is interest dependent. Keywords Natural kinds · Element · Chemistry · Isotopes · Mendeleev · Putnam & Kripke
1 Introduction As is well known, the notion of natural kinds in biology is somewhat problematic. Many philosophers of biology now maintain that biological species do not constitute natural kinds, as was formerly believed, but that they should be regarded as individuals (Ghiselin 1974; Hull 1976). One of the motivations for this claim is that natural kinds should somehow be ‘eternal’, whereas biological species clearly come and go. One of the most strident critics of this view has been Michael Ruse who, among other things, points out that in modern biology it is no longer the case that species appear only once. As Ruse reminds us, modern biologists can construct new life forms using the techniques of recombinant DNA (Ruse 1987). Nevertheless, I suspect that philosophers would display less disagreement over the question of whether genuine natural kinds exist in chemistry. They would surely be happy to concede that there may be chemical kinds such as water or gold, to cite the two most frequently used examples in the literature. There has been a quite extensive literature * Eric R. Scerri [email protected] 1
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
E. R. Scerri
concerning natural kinds in chemistry and part of the debate has centered on whether one should adopt a micro-structuralist approach or an anti-micro-structural view. Recently Havstad has argued that matters are more complicated and has disputed the view that chemistry provides more clear-cut examples of natural kinds than biology (Havstad 2018). Accounts of natural kinds in chemistry have generally come in two main varieties. Hendry has argued that natural kinds are determined by microstructure. This is essentially the Putnam–Kripke view (Kripke 1980; Putnam 1990), but one that has been developed by Hendry in a manner that is more sensitive to wha
Data Loading...
