Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:45:45.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Erratum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Correction
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 175
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial reuse of the work with attribution. Permission for commercial reuse must be obtained from the publisher.
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

Eduardo J. Martinez’s “Stable Property Clusters and Their Grounds” (in vol. 84, no. 5, December 2017) contained an editorial error in the Introduction at the time of publication. The article was corrected in the HTML and online PDF on December 20, 2017.

Outside of the neater confines of certain paradigm cases, philosophers of science have struggled to account for the myriad, messy natural kinds in fields such as biology. Matthew Slater provides a response to this challenge with an account of natural kinds as stable property cluster (SPC) kinds. This account rejects what Slater calls the grounding claim, which states that the epistemic value of natural kinds depends on the existence of some ground, such as an essence or mechanism, that binds the kind’s properties together. In this article, I argue that we should retain the grounding claim in the philosophical analysis of natural kinds. Using two test cases from academic medicine, I show that grounds are genuinely explanatory of scientific epistemic practices and argue that the SPC account should not go without an account of grounds.