Philosophical Studies

, Volume 172, Issue 8, pp 2141–2151 | Cite as

On deriving essentialism from the theory of reference

  • Jussi Haukioja


Causal theories of reference for natural kind terms are widely agreed to play a central role in arguments for the claim that theoretical identity statements such as “Water is H2O” are necessary, if true. However, there is also fairly wide-spread agreement, due to the arguments of Nathan Salmon (in Reference and Essence), that causal theories of reference do not alone establish such essentialism about natural kinds: an independent, non-trivial essentialist premise is also needed. In this paper I will question this latter agreement. I will argue that there is an independently attractive explanation of why such identity statements are metaphysically necessary, if true: an explanation which relies on assumptions about the semantics of natural kind terms, general philosophical assumptions about reference, and straightforward empirical assumptions, but presupposes no non-trivial essentialist premises.


Essentialism Natural kinds Reference Necessity 



Earlier versions of this material were presented at conferences, seminars and workshops in Athens, Canberra, Dunedin, Auckland, Helsinki, and Tampere. I am grateful to audiences at these events for useful feedback. I also want to thank Daniel Cohnitz, Markku Keinänen, Erick Llamas, Daniel Nolan, Alexander Sandgren, and Tuomas Tahko, as well as an anonymous reviewer for the journal, for helpful comments on earlier written versions. Research on this paper was financially supported by the Norwegian Research Council grant 212841.


  1. Bird, A. & Tobin, E. (2008). Natural kinds. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed July 22, 2014 from
  2. Cohnitz, D., & Haukioja, J. (2013). Meta-externalism vs. meta-internalism in the study of reference. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91, 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Devitt, M. (2005). Rigid application. Philosophical Studies, 125(2), 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gelman, S. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(9), 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gelman, S., & Ware, E. (2012). Conceptual development: The case of essentialism. In S. Margolis, S. Stich, & R. Samuels (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 454–479). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Haukioja, J. (2012). Rigidity and actuality-dependence. Philosophical Studies, 157, 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jylkkä, J., Railo, H., & Haukioja, J. (2009). Psychological essentialism and semantic externalism: evidence for externalism in lay speakers’ language use. Philosophical Psychology, 22, 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. LaPorte, J. (2013). Rigid designation and theoretical identities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Leslie, S.-J. (2013). Essence and natural kinds: When science meets preschooler intuition. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 4, 108–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mackie, P. (2006). How things might have been. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malt, B. (1994). Water is not H2O. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martí, G. (2004). Rigidity and general terms. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘Meaning’. In Philosophical papers vol. 2: Mind, language, and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Salmon, N. (1981). Reference and essence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished agenda of naming and necessity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strevens, M. (2000). The essentialist aspect of naive theories. Cognition, 74(2), 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sveinsdottir, A. (2008). Essentiality conferred. Philosophical Studies, 140(1), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sveinsdottir, A. (2013). Knowledge of essence: The conferralist story. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tahko, T. (forthcoming). Natural kind essentialism revisited. Mind.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations