Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:54:52.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resurrecting Biological Essentialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Michael Devitt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article defends the doctrine that Linnaean taxa, including species, have essences that are, at least partly, underlying intrinsic, mostly genetic, properties. The consensus among philosophers of biology is that such essentialism is deeply wrong, indeed incompatible with Darwinism. I argue that biological generalizations about the morphology, physiology, and behavior of species require structural explanations that must advert to these essential properties. The objection that, according to current “species concepts,” species are relational is rejected. These concepts are primarily concerned with what it is for a kind to be a species and throw little light on the essentialist issue of what it is for an organism to be a member of a particular kind. Finally, the article argues that this essentialism can accommodate features of Darwinism associated with variation and change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 344 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

This article started with “Some Heretical Thoughts on Biological Essentialism,” an eight-page piece I wrote in 2003, on the basis of little reading, and sent to a number of experts for comment. This had two surprising consequences. First, the volume of response was astounding: initial responses together with follow-up discussions amounted to one hundred pages. Second, given the consensus, I expected the experts to identify deep flaws in these “heretical thoughts.” Yet this did not happen. I was corrected, informed, and guided on many matters and yet my basic argument for biological essentialism seemed to me to survive fairly intact. The experts I am indebted to for their heroic attempts to set me straight at that point are Peter Godfrey-Smith, Paul Griffiths, Stephen Schwartz, Stephen Stich, and particularly, Joseph LaPorte, Karen Neander, and Samir Okasha. The first version of the article was delivered at the University of Queensland in November 2005 and later versions have been delivered at many other universities. The article has benefited greatly from those events and also from the written comments of Matt Barker, Alberto Cordero, Michael Dickson, Marc Ereshefsky, Philip Kitcher, Joseph LaPorte, Mike Levin, Georges Rey, Iakovos Vasiliou, John Wilkins, and Rob Wilson. Finally, my thanks to Macquarie University for the position of Visiting Associate in October and November of 2005, during which the first version of the article was mostly written.

References

Biello, David (2007), “Life's Bar Code: Genetic Tests Unveil 15 New Species of North American Birds”, http://www.sciam.com.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999), “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–185.Google Scholar
Caplan, Arthur L. (1980), “Have Species Become Déclassé?”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Giere, Ronald N. (eds.), PSA 1980: Proceedings of the 1980 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 71–82Google Scholar
Carroll, Sean B. (2005), Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Cartright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, Joel ([1983] 1992), “Species Concepts and Speciation Analysis”, in R. Johnston (ed.), Current Ornithology. New York: Plenum Press, 159–87. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Charles ([1859] 2004), The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Reprint (London: John Murray). New York: Barnes & Noble Classics.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael (1997), Realism and Truth. 2nd rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael (2005), “Rigid Application”, Rigid Application 125:139–165.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael (2008), “Biological Realisms”, in Dyke, Heather (ed.), From Truth to Reality: New Essays in Logic and Metaphysics. London: Routledge, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1981), “Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa”, Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa 90:66–90.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1999), “On the Impossibility of a Monistic Account of Species”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–22.Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles, and Gould, Stephen J. (1972), “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”, in Schopf, T. J. M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, 82–115.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1992a), “Introduction”, in Ereshefsky, Marc (ed.), The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, xiii–xvii.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1992b), “Introduction to Part II: Philosophical Issues”, in Ereshefsky, Marc (ed.), The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 187–198.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1998), “Species Pluralism and Anti-realism”, Species Pluralism and Anti-realism 65:103–120.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1999), “Species and the Linnaean Hierarchy”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 285–305.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (2001), The Poverty of the Linnaean Heirarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. ([1974] 1992), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, A Radical Solution to the Species Problem 47:350–383. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 279–291.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. ([1987] 1992), “Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity”, Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity 2:127–143. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 363–380.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Graham C. D. (1974), “On the Foundations of Biological Systematics”, On the Foundations of Biological Systematics 23:85–131.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul (1999), “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 209–228.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul (2002), “What Is Innateness?”, What Is Innateness? 85:70–85.Google Scholar
Hennig, Willi (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. ([1965] 1992), “The Effects of Essentialism on Taxonomy: Two Thousand Years of Stasis”, The Effects of Essentialism on Taxonomy: Two Thousand Years of Stasis 15:314–326, and 16:1–18. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 199–225.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. ([1978] 1992), “A Matter of Individuality”, A Matter of Individuality 45:335–360. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 293–316.Google Scholar
Keil, Frank C. (1989), Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip ([1984] 2003), “Species”, Species 51:308–333. Reprinted in Kitcher 2003, 113–134.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip ([1989] 2003), “Some Puzzles about Species”, in Ruse, Michael (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 193–201. Reprinted in Kitcher 2003, 135–158.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2003), In Mendel's Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitts, David B., and Kitts, David J. (1979), “Biological Species as Natural Kinds”, Biological Species as Natural Kinds 46:613–622.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary (1993), Inductive Inference and Its Inductive Ground: An Essay in Naturalistic Epistemology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul (1980), Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
LaPorte, Joseph (2004), Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mallet, James (1995), “A Species Definition for the Modern Synthesis”, A Species Definition for the Modern Synthesis 10:294–299.Google ScholarPubMed
Matthen, Mohan (1998), “Biological Universals and the Nature of Fear”, Biological Universals and the Nature of Fear 95:105–132.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1961), “Cause and Effect in Biology”, Cause and Effect in Biology 134:1501–1506.Google ScholarPubMed
Mayr, Ernst ([1963] 1992), “Species Concepts and Their Application”, in Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Chapter 2. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 15–25.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1969), Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett (2000), On Clear and Confused Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, Brent D. (1999), “Getting Rid of Species?”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 307–315.Google Scholar
Mishler, Brent D., and Donoghue, Michael J. ([1982] 1992), “Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism”, Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism 31:491–503. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 121–137.Google Scholar
O’Hara, Robert J. (1993), “Systematic Generalization, Historical Fate, and the Species Problem”, Systematic Generalization, Historical Fate, and the Species Problem 42:231–246.Google Scholar
Okasha, Samir (2002), “Darwinian Metaphysics: Species and the Question of Essentialism”, Darwinian Metaphysics: Species and the Question of Essentialism 131:191–213.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1950), The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael ([1987] 1992), “Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38:225–242. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, George G. (1945), “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals”, The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals 85:1–350.Google Scholar
Simpson, George G. (1961), Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott ([1980] 1992), “Evolution, Population Thinking and Essentialism”, Evolution, Population Thinking and Essentialism 47:350–383. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 247–278.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1993), Philosophy of Biology. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert, and Crovello, Theodore J. ([1970] 1992), “The Biological Species Concept: A Critical Evaluation”, The Biological Species Concept: A Critical Evaluation 104:127–153. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 27–55.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. Kyle (1995), “For Pluralism and Against Realism about Species”, For Pluralism and Against Realism about Species 62:70–91.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim (1999), “Species as Ecological Mosaics”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119–138Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Griffiths, Paul (1999), Sex and Death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Valen, Leigh ([1976] 1992), “Ecological Species, Multi-species and Oaks”, Ecological Species, Multi-species and Oaks 25:233–239. Reprinted in The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, Marc Ereshefsky (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 69–77.Google Scholar
Wade, Nicholas (2006), “Scientists Hope to Unravel Neanderthal DNA and Human Mysteries”, New York Times, July 21.Google Scholar
Webster, Gerry, and Goodwin, Brian C. (1996), Form and Transformation: Generative and Relational Principles in Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, David (1980), Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (1999), “Realism, Essence, and Kind: Resuscitating Species Essentialsim?”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar