Darwinism, Process Structuralism, and Natural Kinds
Griffiths (Paul)
Source: Philosophy of Science 63, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers (Sep., 1996), pp. S1-S9
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsColour-ConventionsDisclaimer

Philosophers Index Abstract

    Darwinists classify biological traits either by their ancestry (homology) or by their adaptive role. Only the latter can provide traditional natural kinds1, but only the former is practicable. Process structuralists exploit this embarrassment to argue for non-Darwinian classifications in terms of underlying developmental mechanisms. This new taxonomy will also explain phylogenetic inertia and developmental constraint. I argue that Darwinian homologies are natural kinds2 despite having historical essences and being spatio-temporally restricted. Furthermore, process structuralist explanations of biological form require an unwarranted assumption about the space of developmental possibility.

    (EBSCOHost): Argues on Darwinism classification of homology, structuralism, and traditional natural kinds3. Explanation of phylogenetic inertia and developmental constraint; Interpretation of process structuralism and complexity theory; Rejection of Darwinian historical explanations concerning natural kinds4.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - June 2020. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page