Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T11:30:36.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ingo Brigandt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Marc Ereshefsky argues that pluralism about species suggests that the species concept is not theoretically useful. It is to be abandoned in favor of several concrete species concepts that denote real categories. While accepting species pluralism, the present paper rejects eliminativism about the species category. Based on the idea that the species concept is a so-called investigative kind concept, it is argued that the species concept is important and that it is possible to make sense of a general species concept despite the existence of different concrete species concepts.

Type
Evolutionary Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1305 - 1316
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Paul Griffiths, Jim Lennox, Sandy Mitchell, Marc Ereshefsky, Alan Love, and Jim Tabery for helpful comments on this paper.

References

Atran, Scott (1990), Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999), “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 141–185.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (n.d.a), “Conceptual Change and the Causal Theory of Reference”, manuscript.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (n.d.b), “The Role a Concept Plays in Science—The Case of Homology”, manuscript.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, Kevin (1999), “The General Lineage Concept of Species and the Defining Properties of the Species Category”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 49–89.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1992), “Eliminative Pluralism”, Eliminative Pluralism 59:671–690.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1998), “Species Pluralism and Anti-Realism”, Species Pluralism and Anti-Realism 65:103–120.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. (1987), “Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity”, Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity 2:127–143.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1999), “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 209–228.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. (1987), “Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles”, Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles 2:168–183.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “Species”, Species 51:308–333.Google Scholar
Mayden, Richard L. (1997), “A Hierarchy of Species Concepts: The Denouement in the Saga of the Species Problem”, in Claridge, Michael F., Dawah, Hassan A., and Wilson, Michael R. (eds.), Species: The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall, 381–424.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1987), “The Ontological Status of Species: Scientific Progress and Philosophical Terminology”, The Ontological Status of Species: Scientific Progress and Philosophical Terminology 2:145–166.Google Scholar
Mishler, Brent D., and Brandon, Robert N. (1987), “Individuality, Pluralism, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept”, Individuality, Pluralism, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept 2:397–414.Google Scholar
Mishler, Brent D., and Donoghue, Michael J. (1982), “Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism”, Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism 31:491–503.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’”, in Putnam, Hilary (ed.), Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1994), Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, George G. (1961), The Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle (1995), “For Pluralism and Against Realism About Species”, For Pluralism and Against Realism About Species 62:70–91.Google Scholar
Wiley, Edward O. (1981), Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (1999), “Realism, Essence, and Kind: Resuscitating Species Essentialism?”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar