Philosophy, natural kinds, microstructuralism, and the (mis)use of chemical examples: intimacy versus integrity as orientations towards chemical practice

Abstract

This essay critically considers the issue of natural kind essentialism. More specifically, the essay critically probes the philosophical use of chemical examples to support realism about natural kinds. My simple contention is that the natural kind debate can be understood in terms of two different cultures of academic production. These two cultures will be conceptualized using Thomas Kasulis’s distinction between intimacy and integrity as cultural orientations. Acknowledging Kasulis’s contention that, “What is foreground in one culture may be background in another”, it may very well be the case that philosophers writing about chemistry place chemical practice in the background, thereby adopting the orientation of integrity. Chemists and philosophers of chemistry, on the other hand, place chemical practice at the foreground of their work, thereby adopting the orientation of intimacy. Because the intimacy orientation is grounded in chemical practice, it is preferable to the integrity orientation. Understanding the natural kinds debate from this perspective highlights the fact that the misuse of chemical examples by certain philosophers is informed by an orientation of detachment from actual chemical practice. This underscores the importance of an intimate understanding of chemical practice when deploying chemical examples in the context of philosophical discussions about ontology and metaphysics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bensaude-Vincent, B.: Philosophy of chemistry or philosophy with chemistry? HYLE Int. J. Philos. Chem. 20, 59–76 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bursten, J.: Microstructure without essentialism: a new perspective on chemical classification. Philos. Sci. 81, 633–653 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang, H.: Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Boston Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 293. Springer, Berlin (2012)

  4. Ellis, B.: The Philosophy of Nature: A Guide to the New Essentialism. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal (2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Havstad, J.: Messy chemical kinds. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 69, 719–743 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kasulis, T.: Intimacy or Integrity: Philosophy and Cultural Difference. Hawai’i Press, Honolulu (2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Kendig, C.: Natural Kinds and the Classification of Scientific Practice. Taylor & Francis, London (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. LaPorte, J.: Chemical kind term reference and the discovery of essence. Noûs 30(1), 112–132 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leslie, S.-J.: Essence and natural kinds: when science meets preschooler intuition. In: Szabó, T., Hawthorne, J. (eds.) Oxford Studies in the Epistemology, vol. 4, pp. 108–166. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Needham, P.: What is water? Analysis 60(1), 13–21 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Needham, P.: Microessentialism: ‘what is the argument?’. Noûs 45(1), 1–21 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Putnam, H.: The Meaning of Meaning. In: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, pp. 215–271. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1975)

  13. Ramsey, J.: Realism, essentialism, and intrinsic properties: the case of molecular shape. In: Bhushan, N., Rosenfeld, S. (eds.) Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry, pp. 117–128. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stroll, A.: Sketches of Landscapes: Philosophy by Example. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van Brakel, J.: The chemistry of substances and the philosophy of mass terms. Synthese 69(3), 291–324 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Brakel, J.: Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image. Leuven University Press, Leuven (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Van Brakel, J.: On the inventors of XYZ. Found. Chem. 7, 57–84 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. VandeWall, H.: Why water is not H2O, and other critiques of essentialist ontology from the philosophy of chemistry. Philos. Sci. 74, 906–919 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weisberg, M.: Water is not H2O. In: Baird, D., Scerri, E., McIntyre, L. (eds.) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Chemistry, vol. 242, pp. 337–345. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wilson, R.: Realism, essence, and kind: resuscitating species essentialism. In: Wilson, R. (ed.) Species: New Interdisciplinary Studies, pp. 187–207. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clevis Headley.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Headley, C. Philosophy, natural kinds, microstructuralism, and the (mis)use of chemical examples: intimacy versus integrity as orientations towards chemical practice. Found Chem 22, 489–500 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-020-09368-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Essentialism
  • Essences
  • Natural kinds
  • Microstructural essentialism
  • Integrity
  • Intimacy