Natural kind in the context of "Social construct"

⭐ In the context of social constructs, natural kinds are considered…

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Natural kind

In the philosophy of science and some other branches of philosophy, a "natural kind" is an intellectual grouping, or categorizing of things, that is reflective of the actual world and not just human interests. Some treat it as a classification identifying some structure of truth and reality that exists whether or not humans recognize it. Others treat it as intrinsically useful to the human mind, but not necessarily reflective of something more objective. Candidate examples of natural kinds are found in all the sciences, but the field of chemistry provides the paradigm example of elements. Alexander Bird and Emma Tobin see natural kinds as relevant to metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of language, as well as the philosophy of science.

John Dewey held a view that belief in unconditional natural kinds is a mistake, a relic of obsolete scientific practices. Hilary Putnam rejects descriptivist approaches to natural kinds with semantic reasoning. Hasok Chang and Rasmus Winther hold the emerging view that natural kinds are useful and evolving scientific facts.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

πŸ‘‰ Natural kind in the context of Social construct

A social construct is any category or thing that is made real by convention or collective agreement. Socially constructed realities are contrasted with natural kinds, which exist independently of human behavior or beliefs.

Simple examples of social constructs are the meaning of words, the value of paper money, and the rules of economic systems. Other examples, such as race, were formerly considered controversial but are now accepted by the consensus of scientists to be socially constructed rather than naturally determined. Still other possible examples, such as less empirical and more abstract concepts which underlie particular scientific theories, remain the subject of ongoing philosophical debate.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Natural kind in the context of Class (philosophy)

A class is a collection whose members either fall under a predicate or are classified by a rule. Hence, while a set can be extensionally defined only by its elements, a class has also an intensional dimension that unites its members. When the term 'class' is applied so that it includes those sets whose elements are intended to be collected without a common predicate or rule, the distinction can be indicated by calling such sets "improper class."

Philosophers sometimes distinguish classes from types and kinds. The class of human beings is discussed, as well as the type (or natural kind), human being, or humanity. While both are typically treated as abstract objects and not different categories of being, types not classes are usually treated as universals. Whether natural kinds ought to be considered universals is vexed; see natural kind.

↑ Return to Menu

Natural kind in the context of Causal theory of reference

A causal theory of reference or historical chain theory of reference is a theory of how terms acquire specific referents based on evidence. Such theories have been used to describe many referring terms, particularly logical terms, proper names, and natural kind terms. In the case of names, for example, a causal theory of reference typically involves the following claims:

  • a name's referent is fixed by an original act of naming (also called a "dubbing" or, by Saul Kripke, an "initial baptism"), whereupon the name becomes a rigid designator of that object.
  • later uses of the name succeed in referring to the referent by being linked to that original act via a causal chain.

Weaker versions of the position (perhaps not properly called "causal theories") claim merely that, in many cases, events in the causal history of a speaker's use of the term, including when the term was first acquired, must be considered to correctly assign references to the speaker's words.

↑ Return to Menu