Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:20:57.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Philosophically Tackle Kinds without Talking about “Natural Kinds”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2020

Ingo Brigandt
Ingo Brigandt*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent rival attempts in the philosophy of science to put forward a general theory of the properties that all (and only) natural kinds across the sciences possess may have proven to be futile. Instead, I develop a general methodological framework for how to philosophically study kinds. Any kind has to be investigated and articulated together with the human aims that motivate referring to this kind, where different kinds in the same scientific domain can answer to different concrete aims. My core contention is that nonepistemic aims, including environmental, ethical, and political aims, matter as well. This is defended and illustrated based on several examples of kinds, with particular attention to the role of social-political aims: species, race, gender, as well as personality disorders and oppositional defiant disorder as psychiatric kinds. Such nonepistemic aims and values need not always be those personally favoured by scientists but may have to reflect values that matter to relevant societal stakeholders. Despite the general agenda to study “kinds,” I argue that philosophers should stop using the term “natural kinds,” as this label obscures the relevance of human interests and the way in which many kinds are based on contingent social processes subject to human responsibility.

Keywords

Natural kindsscience and valuesnonepistemic aimsnonepistemic valuesracegenderpsychiatric kinds
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 52 , Issue 3: Engaging with Science, Values, and Society , April 2022 , pp. 356 - 379
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, Claire. 2015. “Sex Redefined: The Idea of Two Sexes Is Simplistic. Biologists Now Think There Is a Wider Spectrum Than That.” Nature 518 (7539): 288–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcoff, Linda. 1988. “Cultural Feminism Versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory.” Signs 13 (3): 405–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, Robin O. 1998. “A New Perspective on the Race Debate.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (2): 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appiah, K. Anthony. 1996. “Race, Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections. Part 1: Analysis: Against Races.” In Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race, edited by Appiah, K. Anthony and Gutmann, Amy, 30–74. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Attenborough, Robert. 2015. “What Are Species and Why Does It Matter? Anopheline Taxonomy and the Transmission of Malaria.” In Taxonomic Tapestries: The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research, edited by Behie, Alison M. and Oxenham, Marc F., 129–55. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
Biddle, Justin B. 2020. “On Predicting Recidivism: Epistemic Risk, Tradeoffs, and Values in Machine Learning.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, Jessica. 2013. “The Use of Natural Kinds in Evolutionary Developmental Biology.” Biological Theory 7 (2): 121–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1989. “What Realism Implies and What It Does Not.” Dialectica 43 (1–2): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1991. “Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds.” Philosophical Studies 61 (1–2): 127–48.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1999a. “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa.” In Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, edited by Wilson, Robert A., 141–85. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1999b. “Kinds as the ‘Workmanship of Men’: Realism, Constructivism, and Natural Kinds.” In Rationality, Realism, Revision: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the Society for Analytic Philosophy, edited by Nida-Rümelin, Julian, 52–89. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2009. “Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations.” Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1–2): 77–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Brigandt, Ingo. 2011. “Natural Kinds and Concepts: A Pragmatist and Methodologically Naturalistic Account.” In Pragmatism, Science and Naturalism, edited by Knowles, Jonathan and Rydenfelt, Henrik, 171–96. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2015. “Social Values Influence the Adequacy Conditions of Scientific Theories: Beyond Inductive Risk.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (3): 326–56.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo, and Rosario, Esther. 2020. “Strategic Conceptual Engineering for Epistemic and Social Aims.” In Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics, edited by Burgess, Alexis, Cappelen, Herman, and Plunkett, David, 100–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, Anke. 2018. “Public Epistemic Trustworthiness and the Integration of Patients in Psychiatric Classification.” Synthese, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01913-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, Anke. 2019. “Epistemic Injustice and Psychiatric Classification.” Philosophy of Science 86 (5): 1064–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Alexis, Cappelen, Herman, and Plunkett, David, eds. 2020. Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Alexis, and Plunkett, David. 2013. “Conceptual Ethics I.” Philosophy Compass 8 (12): 1091–101.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman. 2018. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2016. “The Rising of Chemical Natural Kinds through Epistemic Iteration.” In Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice, edited by Kendig, Catherine, 33–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Charland, Louis C. 2004. “Character: Moral Treatment and the Personality Disorders.” In The Philosophy of Psychiatry: A Companion, edited by Radden, Jennifer, 64–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conix, Stijn. 2018. "Radical Pluralism, Ontological Underdetermination, and the Role of Values in Species Classification" (PhD. diss., University of Cambridge), https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.21480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conix, Stijn. 2019. “Radical Pluralism, Classificatory Norms and the Legitimacy of Species Classifications.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 73: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conix, Stijn, and Chi, Pei-Shan. 2020. “Against Natural Kind Eliminativism.” Synthese, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02614-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Rachel. 2004. “Why Hacking Is Wrong about Human Kinds.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (1): 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. 2009. “Mechanisms and Natural Kinds.” Philosophical Psychology 22 (5): 575–94.Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada, and Intemann, Kristen. 2011. “Feminist Resources for Biomedical Research: Lessons from the HPV Vaccines.” Hypatia 26 (1): 79–101.Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada, and Intemann, Kristen. 2018. The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap between Scientists and the Public. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dembroff, Robin A. 2020. “Beyond Binary: Genderqueer as Critical Gender Kind.” Philosopher’s Imprint 22 (9): 1–23.Google Scholar
Dupré, John. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2020. “A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C., and McKaughan, Daniel J.. 2014. “Nonepistemic Values and the Multiple Goals of Science.” Philosophy of Science 81 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc. 2001. The Poverty of the Linnean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc, and Reydon, Thomas A. C.. 2015. “Scientific Kinds.” Philosophical Studies 172 (4): 969–86.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc, and Reydon, Thomas A. C.. Forthcoming. “The Grounded Functionality Account of Natural Kinds.” In From Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics, edited by Bausman, William C., Baxter, Janella, Lean, Oliver, Love, Alan C., and Waters, C. Kenneth. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
Frankham, Richard, Ballou, Jonathan D., Dudash, Michele R., Eldridge, Mark D. B., Fenster, Charles B., Lacy, Robert C., Mendelson, Joseph R., Porton, Ingrid J., Ralls, Katherine, and Ryder, Oliver A.. 2012. “Implications of Different Species Concepts for Conserving Biodiversity.” Biological Conservation 153: 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin-Hall, L. R. 2015. “Natural Kinds as Categorical Bottlenecks.” Philosophical Studies 172 (4): 925–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, Nico M. 2005. “Outline of an Explanatory Account of Cladistic Practice.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (2): 489–515.Google Scholar
Gannett, Lisa. 2010. “Questions Asked and Unasked: How by Worrying Less About the ‘Really Real’ Philosophers of Science Might Better Contribute to Debates About Genetics and Race.” Synthese 177 (3): 363–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godman, Marion. 2013. “Psychiatric Disorders Qua Natural Kinds: The Case of the ‘Apathetic Children.’” Biological Theory 7 (2): 144–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2015. “Whose Social Values? Evaluating Canada’s ‘Death of Evidence’ Controversy.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (3): 404–24.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 1997. What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 1999. “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences.” In Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, edited by Wilson, Robert A., 208–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. 2004. “Emotions as Natural and Normative Kinds.” Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 2007. “Natural Kinds: Rosy Dawn, Scholastic Twilight.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 61: 203–39.Google Scholar
Hardimon, Michael O. 2017. Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haslam, Nick. 2003. “Kinds of Kinds: A Conceptual Taxonomy of Psychiatric Categories.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 9 (3): 203–17.Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2000. “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be?” Noûs 34 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2005. “What Are We Talking About? The Semantics and Politics of Social Kinds.” Hypatia 20 (4): 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2006. “What Good Are Our Intuitions?” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (1): 89–118.Google Scholar
Havstad, Joyce C. 2020. “Archaic Hominin Genetics and Amplified Inductive Risk.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawley, Katherine, and Bird, Alexander. 2011. “What Are Natural Kinds?” Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1): 205–21.Google Scholar
Heyes, Cressida J. 2000. Line Drawings: Defining Women through Feminist Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochman, Adam. 2017. “In Defense of the Metaphysics of Race.” Philosophical Studies 174 (11): 2709–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, Allan V. 2014. “The Social Functions of Natural Kinds: The Case of Major Depression.” In Classifying Psychopathology: Mental Kinds and Natural Kinds, edited by Kincaid, Harold and Sullivan, Jacqueline A., 209–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huneman, Philippe. 2018. “Outlines of a Theory of Structural Explanations.” Philosophical Studies 175 (3): 665–702.Google Scholar
Hyde, Janet Shibley, Bigler, Rebecca S., Joel, Daphna, Tate, Charlotte Chucky, and van Anders, Sari M.. 2019. “The Future of Sex and Gender in Psychology: Five Challenges to the Gender Binary.” American Psychologist 74 (2): 171–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (2): 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Katharine. 2016. “Amelioration and Inclusion: Gender Identity and the Concept of Woman.” Ethics 126 (2): 394–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Jonathan M. 2010. “When Socially Determined Categories Make Biological Realities.” The Monist 93 (2): 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendig, Catherine. 2016a. “Editor’s Introduction: Activities of Kinding in Scientific Practice.” In Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice, edited by Kendig, Catherine, 1–13. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kendig, Catherine. 2016b. “Homologizing as Kinding.” In Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice, edited by Kendig, Catherine, 106–25. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kessler, Suzanne J. 1990. “The Medical Construction of Gender: Case Management of Intersexed Infants.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16 (1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalidi, Muhammad Ali. 2013. Natural Categories and Human Kinds: Classification in the Natural and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalidi, Muhammad Ali. 2018. “Natural Kinds as Nodes in Causal Networks.” Synthese 195 (4): 1379–96.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1999. “Race, Ethnicity, Biology, Culture.” In Racism, edited by Harris, Leonard, 87–117. Amherst, MA: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Marc. 2013. “What Makes a Scientific Explanation Distinctively Mathematical?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (3): 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipski, Joachim. 2020. “Natural Diversity: A Neo-Essentialist Misconstrual of Homeostatic Property Cluster Theory in Natural Kind Debates.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1996. “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.” In Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science, edited by Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack, 39–58. Dordrecht, Nether.: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorusso, Ludovica, and Bacchini, Fabio. 2015. “A Reconsideration of the Role of Self-Identified Races in Epidemiology and Biomedical Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 52: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, David. 2014. “Hysteria, Race, and Phlogiston. A Model of Ontological Elimination in the Human Sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 45: 68–77.Google Scholar
Ludwig, David. 2016. “Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal.” Erkenntnis 81 (6): 1253–72.Google Scholar
Ludwig, David. 2017. “Indigenous and Scientific Kinds.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68 (1): 187–212.Google Scholar
Ludwig, David. 2018. “Letting Go of ‘Natural Kind’: Toward a Multidimensional Framework of Nonarbitrary Classification.” Philosophy of Science 85 (1): 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, Miles. 2010. “The Epistemology-Only Approach to Natural Kinds: A Reply to Thomas Reydon.” In The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Stadler, Friedrich, 189–94. Dordrecht, Nether.: Springer.Google Scholar
Magnus, P. D. 2012. Scientific Enquiry and Natural Kinds: From Planets to Mallards. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, Ron. 2006. “‘Race’: Normative, Not Metaphysical or Semantic.” Ethics 116 (3): 525–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkola, Mari. 2009. “Gender Concepts and Intuitions.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (4): 559–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1998. “A Common Structure for Concepts of Individuals, Stuffs, and Real Kinds: More Mama, More Milk, and More Mouse.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1): 55–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1999. “Historical Kinds and the ‘Special Sciences.’” Philosophical Studies 95 (1–2): 45–65.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo. 2013. “What Are We to Make of the Concept of Race? Thoughts of a Philosopher–Scientist.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3): 272–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potochnik, Angela. 2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Nancy Nyquist. 2014. “Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Cultural Factors That Influence Interpretations of Defiant Behavior and Their Social and Scientific Consequences.” In Classifying Psychopathology: Mental Kinds and Natural Kinds, edited by Kincaid, Harold and Sullivan, Jacqueline A., 175–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Nancy Nyquist. 2015. “Feminist Psychiatric Ethics in the Twenty-First Century and the Social Context of Suffering.” In The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatric Ethics, edited by Sadler, John Z., van Staden, Werdie (C. W.) and Fulford, K. W. M. (Bill), 436–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Nancy Nyquist. 2016. The Virtue of Defiance and Psychiatric Engagement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Nancy Nyquist. 2019. “Voice, Silencing, and Listening Well: Socially Located Patients, Oppressive Structures, and an Invitation to Shift the Epistemic Terrain.” In The Bloomsbury Companion to Philosophy of Psychiatry, edited by Tekin, Şerife and Bluhm, Robyn, 305–24. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Prinzing, Michael. 2018. “The Revisionist’s Rubric: Conceptual Engineering and the Discontinuity Objection.” Inquiry 61 (8): 854–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydon, Thomas A. C. 2010. “How Special Are the Life Sciences? A View from the Natural Kinds Debate.” In The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Stadler, Friedrich, 173–88. Dordrecht, Nether.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydon, Thomas A. C. 2016. “From a Zooming-in Model to a Co-Creation Model: Towards a More Dynamic Account of Classification and Kinds.” In Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice, edited by Kendig, Catherine, 59–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rieppel, Olivier. 2005. “Monophyly, Paraphyly, and Natural Kinds.” Biology and Philosophy 20 (2–3): 465–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, Phyllis. 2017. “The Borderlands between Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values.” In Current Controversies in Values and Science, edited by Elliott, Kevin C. and Steel, Daniel, 31–46. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, Jennifer. 2006. “Gender and Race.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (1): 119–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, S. Andrew. 2017. “Using Democratic Values in Science: An Objection and (Partial) Response.” Philosophy of Science 84 (5): 1044–54.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. Andrew. 2020. “Values in Science: Ethical vs. Political Approaches.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Matthew H. 2015. “Natural Kindness.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (2): 375–411.Google Scholar
Spencer, Quayshawn. 2016. “Genuine Kinds and Scientific Reality.” In Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice, edited by Kendig, Catherine, 157–72. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spencer, Quayshawn. 2018. ““Racial Realism Ii: Are Folk Races Real?”.” Philosophy Compass 13 (1): e12467.Google Scholar
Sveinsdóttir, Ásta Kristjana. 2011. “The Metaphysics of Sex and Gender.” In Feminist Metaphysics: Explorations in the Ontology of Sex, Gender and the Self, edited by Witt, Charlotte, 47–65. Dordrecht, Nether.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templeton, Alan R. 2013. “Biological Races in Humans.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3): 262–71.Google ScholarPubMed
van Anders, Sari M., Schudson, Zach C., Abed, Emma C., Beischel, William J., Dibble, Emily R., Gunther, Olivia D., Kutchko, Val J., and Silver, Elisabeth R.. 2017. “Biological Sex, Gender, and Public Policy.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (2): 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Günter P. 2014. Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Warne, Garry L., Grover, Sonia, and Zajac, Jeffrey D.. 2005. “Hormonal Therapies for Individuals with Intersex Conditions: Protocol for Use.” Treatments in Endocrinology 4 (1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, John S. 2018. Species: The Evolution of the Idea. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. Barker, Matthew J., and Brigandt, Ingo. 2007. “When Traditional Essentialism Fails: Biological Natural Kinds.” Philosophical Topics 35 (1–2): 189–215.Google Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2012. “Values and Uncertainties in the Predictions of Global Climate Models.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22 (2): 111–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Wylie, Alison, and Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 2007. “Coming to Terms with the Values of Science: Insights from Feminist Science Scholarship.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions, edited by Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison, 58–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yudell, Michael, Roberts, Dorothy, DeSalle, Rob, and Tishkoff, Sarah. 2016. “Taking Race out of Human Genetics.” Science 351 (6273): 564–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zachar, Peter. 2002. “The Practical Kinds Model as a Pragmatist Theory of Classification.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 9 (3): 219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zachar, Peter. 2014. A Metaphysics of Psychopathology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zachar, Peter, and Potter, Nancy Nyquist. 2010. “Personality Disorders: Moral or Medical Kinds—Or Both?” Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 17 (2): 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zack, Naomi. 1993. Race and Mixed Race. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar