Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other

In this paper, I consider ways of responding to critiques of natural kinds monism recently suggested from the pluralist camp. Even if monism is determined to be untenable in certain domains (say, about species), it might well be tenable in others. Chemistry is suggested to be such a monist‐friendly...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Philosophy of science 2005-01, Vol.72 (1), p.22-42
Main Author: Slater, Matthew H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Atoms
Biodiversity
Chemicals
Chemistry
Classification
Enantiomers
History of science and technology
Knowledge
Meats
Molecular structure
Molecules
Monism
Natural kinds
Ontological pluralism
Organic chemistry
Philosophical realism
Philosophy
Philosophy of science
Physical sciences and techniques
Science
Scientific research
Theory
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In this paper, I consider ways of responding to critiques of natural kinds monism recently suggested from the pluralist camp. Even if monism is determined to be untenable in certain domains (say, about species), it might well be tenable in others. Chemistry is suggested to be such a monist‐friendly domain. Suggestions of trouble for chemical kinds can be defused by attending to the difference between monism as a metaphysical thesis and as a claim about classification systems. Finally, I consider enantiomers as a test case for the monism/pluralism debate. The question of whether enantiomers differ in kind does not appear easily answerable. I suggest that this legislates for pluralism in chemistry.
ISSN:0031-8248
1539-767X
DOI:10.1086/426847