When Traditional Essentialism Fails: Biological Natural Kinds

By Robert A. Wilson, Matthew J. Barker, Ingo Brigandt. 2007

193 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, History and Philosophy of Science, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03af32fb60b5bc77f19391aa3dd91a05e55ca0e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Marc Ereshefsky
2. Paul E. Griffiths
3. Andrea Scarantino

In History and Philosophy of Science

1. Marc Ereshefsky
2. Paul E. Griffiths
3. Andrea Scarantino

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Marc Ereshefsky
2. Paul E. Griffiths
3. Andrea Scarantino

Citations in the corpus

• What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism (2010, background): “Many have argued that biological taxa are HPC kinds (Boyd 1999a, 1999b; Griffiths 1999; Wilson 1999; Wilson, Barker, and Brigandt 2007; Brigandt 2009).”
• Don’t Give Up on Basic Emotions (2011, background): “Addressing these empirical questions will be more productive for affective science than simply abandoning the idea of basic emotions.”
• Microbiology and the species problem (2010, background): “Given the nature of prokaryotes, the idea that there is a common species phenomenon (Brigandt 2003; Griffiths 2006) does not save the species category, nor does the suggestion that ‘species’ is a family resemblance concept (Pigliucci 2003; Wilson et al. 2009 ).”