当前位置: X-MOL 学术Br. J. Philos. Sci. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Capricious Kinds
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-01 , DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axy024
Jessica Laimann

According to Ian Hacking, some human kinds are subject to a peculiar type of classificatory instability: individuals change in reaction to being classified, which in turn leads to a revision of our understanding of the kind. Hacking’s claim that these ‘human interactive kinds’ cannot be natural kinds has been vehemently criticized on the grounds that similar patterns of instability occur in paradigmatic examples of natural kinds. I argue that the dialectic of the extant debate misses the core conceptual problem of human interactive kinds. The problem is not that these kinds are particularly unstable but ‘capricious’—their members behave in wayward, unexpected manners that defeats existing theoretical understanding. The reason for that, I argue, is that human interactive kinds are often ‘hybrid kinds’ consisting of a base kind and an associated status, which makes mechanisms that support patterns of change and stability systematically difficult to understand and predict. 1. Introduction2. The Extant Discussion 2.1. Hacking’s account of interactive kinds2.2. Classificatory feedback in non-human kinds3. Natural kinds and Ontological Instability 3.1. Understanding instability3.2. The problem of stabilizing feedback3.3. Summary4. Capricious Kinds 4.1. Biased conceptualization4.2. Studying social status5. Conclusion Introduction The Extant Discussion 2.1. Hacking’s account of interactive kinds2.2. Classificatory feedback in non-human kinds Hacking’s account of interactive kinds Classificatory feedback in non-human kinds Natural kinds and Ontological Instability 3.1. Understanding instability3.2. The problem of stabilizing feedback3.3. Summary Understanding instability The problem of stabilizing feedback Summary Capricious Kinds 4.1. Biased conceptualization4.2. Studying social status Biased conceptualization Studying social status Conclusion

中文翻译:

反复无常

根据伊恩·哈金 (Ian Hacking) 的说法,某些人类种类会受到一种特殊类型的分类不稳定性的影响:个体对分类的反应会发生变化,这反过来又会导致我们对该种类的理解发生变化。Hacking 声称这些“人类交互类”不可能是自然类的说法受到了强烈批评,理由是类似的不稳定模式出现在自然类的范例中。我认为现存辩论的辩证法忽略了人类互动类型的核心概念问题。问题不在于这些种类特别不稳定,而是“反复无常”——它们的成员表现得任性、出乎意料,这与现有的理论理解相悖。我认为,这样做的原因是,是人类交互种类通常是由基本种类和相关状态组成的“混合种类”,这使得支持变化和稳定模式的机制难以系统地理解和预测。1. 介绍 2. 现存的讨论 2.1。Hacking 的交互类帐户 2.2。非人类种类的分类反馈3。自然种类和本体不稳定性 3.1。理解不稳定性3.2。稳定反馈的问题3.3。总结 4. 反复无常的种类 4.1。有偏见的概念化 4.2。研究社会地位5。结论 引言 现有讨论 2.1。Hacking 的交互类帐户 2.2。非人类种类的分类反馈 Hacking 对交互种类的解释 非人类种类的分类反馈 自然种类和本体不稳定性 3.1。理解不稳定性3。2.稳定反馈的问题3.3。总结 理解不稳定性 稳定反馈的问题 总结 Capricious Kinds 4.1.有偏见的概念化 4.2。研究社会地位 有偏见的概念化 研究社会地位 结论
更新日期:2020-09-01
down
wechat
bug