Loading…

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!

cited_by	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3
cites	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3
container_end_page	42
container_issue	1
container_start_page	22
container_title	Philosophy of science
container_volume	72
creator	Slater, Matthew H.
description	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.
doi_str_mv	10.1086/426847
format	article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>jstor_uchic</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_uchicagopress_journals_426847</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1086/426847</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1086/426847</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkLFOwzAQhi0EEqXAEzBECJhIubNjxx5RBRSpqAwgsUWuY9NUaVzsZODtCWrVIpa74T599-sn5BxhhCDFXUaFzPIDMkDOVJqL_OOQDAAYppJm8picxLgEQJQgB2T04psqrhLfJO3CJrPGJhPdlLfJa90FXf899SOckiOn62jPtntI3h8f3saTdDp7eh7fT1PDBLapy4AZYJksJZWouJrLknKLrswdApeUi7LUtnRUMQFGaQ0ULVg-F3oOyrEhudl418F_dTa2xaqKxta1bqzvYsEkUiU578HLf-DSd6HpsxWUQcawT7G3meBjDNYV61CtdPguEIrfzopNZz14vbXpaHTtgm5MFfe0kFwglT13teE6s6iM_vTrYGPcv97pLjbYMrY-7DRMKMZyZD-THH2E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>230431034</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Slater, Matthew H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Slater, Matthew H.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-8248</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-767X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/426847</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PHSCA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Philosophy of science, 2005-01, Vol.72 (1), p.22-42</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Jan 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4009,27902,27903,27904,33202,33203</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16856128$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Slater, Matthew H.</creatorcontrib><title>Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other</title><title>Philosophy of science</title><description>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.</description><subject>Atoms</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Chemicals</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Enantiomers</subject><subject>History of science and technology</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Meats</subject><subject>Molecular structure</subject><subject>Molecules</subject><subject>Monism</subject><subject>Natural kinds</subject><subject>Ontological pluralism</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Philosophical realism</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of science</subject><subject>Physical sciences and techniques</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Scientific research</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>0031-8248</issn><issn>1539-767X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkLFOwzAQhi0EEqXAEzBECJhIubNjxx5RBRSpqAwgsUWuY9NUaVzsZODtCWrVIpa74T599-sn5BxhhCDFXUaFzPIDMkDOVJqL_OOQDAAYppJm8picxLgEQJQgB2T04psqrhLfJO3CJrPGJhPdlLfJa90FXf899SOckiOn62jPtntI3h8f3saTdDp7eh7fT1PDBLapy4AZYJksJZWouJrLknKLrswdApeUi7LUtnRUMQFGaQ0ULVg-F3oOyrEhudl418F_dTa2xaqKxta1bqzvYsEkUiU578HLf-DSd6HpsxWUQcawT7G3meBjDNYV61CtdPguEIrfzopNZz14vbXpaHTtgm5MFfe0kFwglT13teE6s6iM_vTrYGPcv97pLjbYMrY-7DRMKMZyZD-THH2E</recordid><startdate>200501</startdate><enddate>200501</enddate><creator>Slater, Matthew H.</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago Press</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200501</creationdate><title>Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other</title><author>Slater, Matthew H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Atoms</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Chemicals</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Enantiomers</topic><topic>History of science and technology</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Meats</topic><topic>Molecular structure</topic><topic>Molecules</topic><topic>Monism</topic><topic>Natural kinds</topic><topic>Ontological pluralism</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Philosophical realism</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of science</topic><topic>Physical sciences and techniques</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Scientific research</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Slater, Matthew H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Philosophy of science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Slater, Matthew H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other</atitle><jtitle>Philosophy of science</jtitle><date>2005-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>72</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>22</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>22-42</pages><issn>0031-8248</issn><eissn>1539-767X</eissn><coden>PHSCA6</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><doi>10.1086/426847</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 0031-8248
ispartof	Philosophy of science, 2005-01, Vol.72 (1), p.22-42
issn	0031-8248 1539-767X
language	eng
recordid	cdi_uchicagopress_journals_426847
source	International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Cambridge Journals Online; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
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
title	Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other
url	http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T04%3A19%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_uchic&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Monism%20on%20the%20One%20Hand,%20Pluralism%20on%20the%20Other&rft.jtitle=Philosophy%20of%20science&rft.au=Slater,%20Matthew%C2%A0H.&rft.date=2005-01&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=22&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=22-42&rft.issn=0031-8248&rft.eissn=1539-767X&rft.coden=PHSCA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/426847&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_uchic%3E10.1086/426847%3C/jstor_uchic%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-f403c0348d8281959b8d25e1fd7f1058256ddaedf29360c9aa021e0e5b6ab09f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=230431034&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=10.1086/426847&rfr_iscdi=true