What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism

被引:58
作者
Ereshefsky, Marc [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calgary, Dept Philosophy, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1086/656545
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
The received view in the philosophy of biology is that biological taxa (species and higher taxa) do not have essences. Recently, some philosophers (Boyd, Devitt, Griffiths, LaPorte, Okasha, and Wilson) have suggested new forms of biological essentialism. They argue that according to these new forms of essentialism, biological taxa do have essences. This article critically evaluates the new biological essentialism. This article's thesis is that the costs of adopting the new biological essentialism are many, yet the benefits are none, so there is no compelling reason to resurrect essentialism concerning biological taxa.
引用
收藏
页码:674 / 685
页数:12
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], [No title captured], DOI DOI 10.5840/PHILT0PICS2007351/29
[2]  
Boyd R, 1999, SPECIES, P141
[3]   Kinds, complexity and multiple realization - Comments on Millikan's 'Historical Kinds and the Special Sciences' [J].
Boyd, RN .
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES, 1999, 95 (1-2) :67-98
[5]  
Carroll S. B., 2005, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom
[6]   Resurrecting Biological Essentialism [J].
Devitt, Michael .
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 2008, 75 (03) :344-382
[7]  
Ereshefsky M., 2001, The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: a philosophical study of biological taxonomy
[8]   Homology: Integrating Phylogeny and Development [J].
Ereshefsky M. .
Biological Theory, 2009, 4 (3) :225-229
[9]  
Griffiths P.E., 1997, WHAT EMOTIONS REALLY
[10]  
Griffiths PE, 1999, SPECIES, P209