Some people would say they are the same thing, or at least that natural kinds are a naturally occurring subset of universals, while universals include human created things as well. Frank is not wrong in that his explanation is one way that people might parse this distinction, but it is not the only way.
Could you recommend some reading on natural kinds and universals? For the life of me, I cannot wrap my head around this. I've tried Hawley and Bird's What are Natural Kinds? and it is beyond me. I've tried the Stanford encyclopedia, but I can't stay focused on that. Trying to answer the question: are natural kinds universals?
is our definitions of words based in properties ? for example we have a banana.We define banana from its image? but if this true if we find something that looks like banana but smells like hot dog then it is a banana? but even if we give banana some properties these properties come arbitrary..so how we define something ?
This digs into the philosophy of language. There are even more difficult puzzles, like Putnam's Twin Earth. What makes something water? Is it H2O or is it the fact that we refer to it as water?
thx for the answer i checked also your video of putnams expirement. 1 more question..when we go to to a river or a lake we take as granted that what we see is water but how can we be sure that is water ? i mean we cant see the oxygene and hydrogen molecules..thx in advandance
There are so many problems with such a claim. It entails that ethics and morality are dead, political philosophy is dead, not to mention logic (the underpinning of math and computer science). But the biggest problem is that without philosophy there's no justification for scientific claims. Science as a methodology is only justified if the project of the scientific realist is successful in philosophy. If not, it is just as based on blind faith as any religion.
Carneades.org Yeah I believe the same way. Also to say philosophy is dead is a unscientific claim and is philosophy in itself. It's scientists like Hawking and Lawrence Krauss who say that. Their reputation might discourage people from studying philosophy
As a scientific instrumentalist, and a pragmatic rational empiricist, I think that scientific realism is really unnecessary. We could all be in a delusion caused by some Cartesian demon, or we could be in a matrix, etc, but if a methodology(ie science) can help us predict phenomena and allows for some measure of utility in controlling our surroundings and achieving desirable outcomes, (and does it as well as science demonstrably does) imo it is simply irrelevant if it describes objective reality or not.
I don't see how 'pragmatism' is compatible with conventionalism at all. Especially in light of the "schoolastic realism" laid out by Peirce; which is at it's strongest in his later work such as Sundry Logical Conceptions, where Peirce first wrote of dicisigns, the topic of the pertinent and provocative book, Natural Propositions, by Frederik Stjernfelt. Pragmatism falls apart, and is not pragmatism if the ontological blindness of conventionalism is accepted.
I'm arguing with my 6 year old cousin about time travel. My position is that there is no time particle so therefore time doesn't exist. Her position is that time can be measured so it has to be a real thing that exists. So, is a day, a second, a minute a real kind of thing?
A good question. I have to refer you to McTaggart's famous Unreality of Time Argument: ruclips.net/video/7A1H6QUWItw/видео.html. In terms of whether these are natural kinds, and hour, a week or a minute would be tough sells, they seem like human inventions. A day a month or a year, less so. Because time is measured in change. (Earth rotation etc.).
Kind that flies, kind that swims, kind that walks, kind that walks upright, monotreme kind, kidney kind, placenta kind, egg laying kind, dexterous kind, air breathing kind, kind with gills, kind that breathes through the nose, kind that breathes through the skin, kind that chews the cud, carnivorous kind, object credit giving kind, higher IQ kind that recognizes you were programmed to exist by recombination of a preexisting written program that no physical thing can ever significantly sequence.
Great explanation, thank you!
Great video, very helpful, is there a follow up? I can't seem to find it on the channel?
So what is the difference between a natural kind and a universal?
Some people would say they are the same thing, or at least that natural kinds are a naturally occurring subset of universals, while universals include human created things as well. Frank is not wrong in that his explanation is one way that people might parse this distinction, but it is not the only way.
Could you recommend some reading on natural kinds and universals? For the life of me, I cannot wrap my head around this. I've tried Hawley and Bird's What are Natural Kinds? and it is beyond me. I've tried the Stanford encyclopedia, but I can't stay focused on that. Trying to answer the question: are natural kinds universals?
is our definitions of words based in properties ? for example we have a banana.We define banana from its image? but if this true if we find something that looks like banana but smells like hot dog then it is a banana? but even if we give banana some properties these properties come arbitrary..so how we define something ?
This digs into the philosophy of language. There are even more difficult puzzles, like Putnam's Twin Earth. What makes something water? Is it H2O or is it the fact that we refer to it as water?
thx for the answer i checked also your video of putnams expirement. 1 more question..when we go to to a river or a lake we take as granted that what we see is water but how can we be sure that is water ? i mean we cant see the oxygene and hydrogen molecules..thx in advandance
"Our words are but lies told about the truth!" -Jacob the Baker
Many scientists say philosophy is dead. I'd like to hear your take on that
There are so many problems with such a claim. It entails that ethics and morality are dead, political philosophy is dead, not to mention logic (the underpinning of math and computer science). But the biggest problem is that without philosophy there's no justification for scientific claims. Science as a methodology is only justified if the project of the scientific realist is successful in philosophy. If not, it is just as based on blind faith as any religion.
Carneades.org Yeah I believe the same way. Also to say philosophy is dead is a unscientific claim and is philosophy in itself. It's scientists like Hawking and Lawrence Krauss who say that. Their reputation might discourage people from studying philosophy
As a scientific instrumentalist, and a pragmatic rational empiricist, I think that scientific realism is really unnecessary. We could all be in a delusion caused by some Cartesian demon, or we could be in a matrix, etc, but if a methodology(ie science) can help us predict phenomena and allows for some measure of utility in controlling our surroundings and achieving desirable outcomes, (and does it as well as science demonstrably does) imo it is simply irrelevant if it describes objective reality or not.
Which means you don't really have much need for natural kinds, and can be happy as a conventionalist if you like.
I don't see how 'pragmatism' is compatible with conventionalism at all. Especially in light of the "schoolastic realism" laid out by Peirce; which is at it's strongest in his later work such as Sundry Logical Conceptions, where Peirce first wrote of dicisigns, the topic of the pertinent and provocative book, Natural Propositions, by Frederik Stjernfelt.
Pragmatism falls apart, and is not pragmatism if the ontological blindness of conventionalism is accepted.
I've never seen this term "kinds" used except for those that pretend in creationism and the flood myth.
It is a way to describe types of things used by philosophers of science that are trying to argue for predictable predicates out in the world.
Is it at all possible to take being philosophical to the point of being impotent.
I don’t know what natural kinds are. They don’t exist
I'm arguing with my 6 year old cousin about time travel. My position is that there is no time particle so therefore time doesn't exist. Her position is that time can be measured so it has to be a real thing that exists. So, is a day, a second, a minute a real kind of thing?
A good question. I have to refer you to McTaggart's famous Unreality of Time Argument: ruclips.net/video/7A1H6QUWItw/видео.html.
In terms of whether these are natural kinds, and hour, a week or a minute would be tough sells, they seem like human inventions. A day a month or a year, less so. Because time is measured in change. (Earth rotation etc.).
Kind that flies, kind that swims, kind that walks, kind that walks upright, monotreme kind, kidney kind, placenta kind, egg laying kind, dexterous kind, air breathing kind, kind with gills, kind that breathes through the nose, kind that breathes through the skin, kind that chews the cud, carnivorous kind, object credit giving kind, higher IQ kind that recognizes you were programmed to exist by recombination of a preexisting written program that no physical thing can ever significantly sequence.
Sounds like you are a promiscuous realist.