Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T20:46:39.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against the Monism of The Moment: A Reply to Elliott Sober

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Philip Kitcher
Philip Kitcher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his “Discussion” (1984), Elliott Sober offers some criticisms of the view about species—pluralistic realism—advocated in my 1984. Sober's comments divide into three parts. He attempts to show that species are not sets; he responds to my critique of David Hull's thesis that species are individuals; and he offers some arguments for the claim that species are “chunks of the genealogical nexus.” I consider each of these objections in turn, arguing that each of them fails. I attempt to use Sober's insightful critique to explain and defend pluralistic realism more fully.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 616 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to David Lewis for some constructive criticisms.

References

Benacerraf, P. (1965), “What Numbers Could Not Be”, Philosophical Review 74: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1978), “The Universality of Laws”, Philosophy of Science 45: 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, J. (1977), Geographic Variation, Speciation, and Clines. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Field, H. (1974), “Quine and the Correspondence Theory”, Philosophical Review 83: 200–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. (1974), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, Systematic Zoology 23: 536–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambourger, R. (1977), “A Difficulty with the Frege-Russell Definition of Number”, Journal of Philosophy 74: 409–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1976), “Are Species Really Individuals?”, Systematic Zoology 25: 174–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, G. (1980), “Frege, Mill, and the Foundations of Arithmetic”, Journal of Philosophy 77: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1978), “The Plight of the Platonist”, Noûs 12: 119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “Species”, Philosophy of Science 51: 308–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), “Discussion: Sets, Species, and evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher's ‘Species‘”, Philosophy of Science 51: 334–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, M. (1975), Mathematical Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
White, M. J. D. (1977), Modes of Speciation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
White, N. (1974), “What Numbers Are”, Synthèse 27: 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, P. (1981), “Paleontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from the Turkana Basin”, Nature 293: 437–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar