Abstract
At the intersection of taxonomy and nomenclature lies the scientific practice of typification. This practice occurs in biology with the use of holotypes (type specimens), in geology with the use of stratotypes, and in metrology with the use of measurement prototypes. In this paper I develop the first general definition of a scientific type and outline a new philosophical theory of types inspired by Pierre Duhem. I use this general framework to resolve the necessity-contingency debate about type specimens in philosophy of biology, to advance the debate over the myth of the absolute accuracy of standards in metrology, and to address the definition-correlation debate in geology. I conclude that just as there has been a productive synergy between philosophical accounts of natural kinds and scientific taxonomic practices, so too there is much to be gained from developing a deeper understanding of the practices and philosophy of scientific types.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Reproduced from Pyle and Michel (2008), Figure 2
(Source Wikimedia commons.) See also Girard (1994).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The general philosophical attitude that guides my approach to scientific types is similar to a particular strain of philosophical work on natural kinds, namely the practice-oriented approach exemplified by Kendig‘s (2016) work on kinding (which focuses on how natural kind categories are identified, constructed, maintained, and even revised); and the view that natural kinds are neither simply a matter of discovery, nor simply a matter of conventional stipulation, but rather involve elements of both (e.g., LaPorte 2004, Bokulich 2014). However, as my focus in this paper is on scientific types and not natural kinds, I will not discuss this literature further here.
It thus by default also marks the boundary of any smaller chronostratigraphic units, in this case, the end of the Upper Cretaceous Series and beginning of the Paleocene Series, and the end of the Maastrichtian Stage and beginning of the Danian Stage.
A single GSSP is placed for each chronostratigraphic boundary, but there is no requirement that successive GSSPs be anywhere near each other. Hence, as discussed below, the scientific challenge is to use empirical evidence to extend that point into an isochronous horizon around the world.
By ‘realization’ one means the conversion of a theoretical quantity to reality.
Even the original 1889 definition of the meter specified that is was the “prototype, at the temperature of melting ice, [that] shall henceforth represent the metric unit of length” (https://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/1/1/).
Tal notes that while Wittgenstein and Kripke helped spread this myth, their own positions were arguably more subtle.
As of May 20th, 2019 the kilogram is now “defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.626 070 15 × 10 − 34 when expressed in the unit J s, which is equal to kg m2 s − 1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ∆νCs” (BIPM 2019a, p. 131).
Of course in the case of the kilogram the new definition is no longer in terms of an artefact scientific type.
‘Type locality’ is being used here in a broader sense (than that of stratotype discussed in “Stratotypes” section) to mean the geographical or stratigraphical location where the type specimen was collected.
The Aim both opens and closes with a discussion of biological classification, where Duhem describes how zoologists aim to reconstruct the true tree of life, but only have access to these “relations of real family affiliation” indirectly through comparative anatomy. Thus he sees biological taxonomy proceeding iteratively, aiming towards a natural classification where the abstract (or what he elsewhere calls “symbolic”) entities and relations of the taxonomy reflect the true familial relations of real organisms. Although interesting and underexplored, the details of Duhem’s philosophy of biology are not directly relevant to our project here.
References
Aubry M-P, Van Couvering J, Berggren W, Steininger F (2000) Should the golden spike glitter? Episodes 23(3):203–210
BIPM (2006) The International System of Units (SI). Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 8th Edn. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8.pdf
BIPM (2019a) The International System of Units (SI). Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 9th Edn. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf
BIPM (2019b) A concise summary of the international system of units (SI). Bureau International des Poids et Mesures’ https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-concise-EN.pdf
Bokulich A (2014) Pluto and the ‘Planet Problem’: folk concepts and natural kinds in astronomy. Perspect Sci 22(4):464–490
Bokulich A (2020) Calibration, coherence, and consilience in radiometric measures of geologic time. Philos Sci 87(3):425–456
Cowie JW, Ziegler W, Boucot AJ, Bassett MG, Remane J (1986) Guidelines and statutes of the international commission on stratigraphy (ICS), vol 83. Frankfurt A. M, Courier Forschungsinstitut, pp 1–14
Duhem P ([1914]1954) The Aim and structure of physical theory, 2nd Edn. Translated from french by marcel rivière. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Girard G (1990) The washing and cleaning of kilogram prototypes at the BIPM Sèvres: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/monographies-misc/Monographie1990-1-EN.pdf
Girard G (1994) The third periodic verification of national prototypes of the kilogram (1988–1992). Metrologia 31:317–336
Haber M (2012) How to misidentify a type specimen. Biol Philos 27:767–784
Havstad J (2019) Let Me Tell You ’bout the birds and the bee-mimicking flies and bambiraptor. Biol Philos 34:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9681-3
Hedberg HD (1976) International stratigraphic guide, 1st edn. Wiley, Hoboken
Holland C, Bassett M, Richards B (2003) Stability in stratigraphy. Lethaia 36:69–70
Hull D (1982) Exemplars and scientific change. In: Asquith PD, Nickles T (eds) PSA 1982, vol II, Philosophy of science association, East Lansing, pp 479–503
ICZN. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature/the-code-online/. Accessed 2019
Kendig C (2016) Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice. Routledge, New York
LaPorte J (2003) Does a type specimen necessarily or contingently belong to its species? Biol Philos 18(4):583–588
LaPorte J (2004) Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Levine A (2001) Individualism, type specimens, and the scrutability of species membership. Biol Philos 16:325–338
Martin RN (1991) Pierre Duhem: philosophy and history in the work of a believing physicist. Open Court Publishing Co, La Salle
McGowran B (2005) Biostratigraphy: microfossils and geologic time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Melchin M, Rong J, Gradstein F, Koren T, Finney S (2004) Stability in stratigraphy. Lethaia 37:124–125
Pyle R, Michel E (2008) ZooBank: developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying 250 years of biological information. Zootaxa 1950:39–50
Quinn T (1991) The kilogram: the present state of our knowledge. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 40(2):81–85
Remane JM, Bassett J, Cowie K, Gohrbandt HR, Lane O, Michelsen WN (1996) Revised guidelines for the establishment of global chronostratigraphic standards by the international commission on stratigraphy (ICS). Episodes 19(3):77–81
Rong J, Melchin M, Williams S, Koren T, Verniers J (2008) Report of the restudy of the defined global stratotype of the base of the silurian system. Episodes 31(3):315–318
Smith A, Barry T, Brown P, Cope J, Gale A, Gibbard P, Gregory J, Hounslow M, Kemp D, Knox R, Marshall J, Oates M, Rawson P, Powell J, Waters C (2015) GSSPs, global stratigraphy and correlation. In: Smith D, Bailey G, Burgess J, Fraser A (eds.) Strata and time: probing the gaps in our understanding. Geological Society, Special Publications, London, pp 404 37–67
Tal E (2011) How accurate is the standard second? Philos Sci 78:1082–1096
Walsh S, Gradstein F, Ogg J (2004) History, philosophy, and application of the global stratotype section and point (GSSP). Lethaia 37:201–2018
Witteveen J (2015) Naming and contingency: the type method of biological taxonomy. Biol Philos 30:569–586
Acknowledgements
This paper was first presented at the XX Jornadas Rolando Chuaqui Kettlun: Filosofía y Ciencias conference in Santiago, Chile, in August 2019, and I am grateful to my generous hosts José Tomás Alvarado and Pablo Acuña, and the audience members there, for giving me the opportunity to develop and refine these ideas in such a stimulating and congenial environment. I am also grateful to Doug Erwin and the graduate students in my Philosophy of Geosciences Research Group, especially Aja Watkins, Leticia Castillo Brache, and Federica Bocchi, for their feedback on an earlier draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bokulich, A. Understanding scientific types: holotypes, stratotypes, and measurement prototypes. Biol Philos 35, 54 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09771-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09771-1