Women phils on natural kinds, esp the special sciences

From a reader:

I’m looking over my bibliographies for natural kinds for courses I’m designing, and I find that Millikan is the only woman currently in them.  Do you happen to know of other women doing good work on natural kinds, esp. regarding the special sciences?

Caroline Lierse is also on the list, but there should be many more.

9 thoughts on “Women phils on natural kinds, esp the special sciences

  1. The ‘natural kinds’ category in phil papers has a good number of suggestions, including Jessica Brown and Asa Wikfoss; in particular Kathrin Koslicki’s paper in Philosophy Compass would be a good intro piece for students. You could also try browsing around in e.g. the Philosophy of Biology category.

    (And I’ll take this opportunity to plug a paper co-written by me and Alexander Bird, ‘What are Natural Kinds?’, out now! in Philosophical Perspectives 2011.)

  2. Perhaps they are not substantive enough for your needs (as they are essentially like encyclopedia entries) but the articles “Character: Historical Perspectives” by Lindley Darden and “Species: Current Usages” by Mary B. Williams in the book, _Keywords in Evolutionary Biology_, edited by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth Lloyd, are both good and relevant, if you consider a philosophy of science approach to the question.

  3. As Simon has hinted at, there’s lots of interesting work by women psychologists on how humans conceive of natural kinds, among many others, Susan Gelman (on essentialism) Deborah Kelemen (on artifacts, perception of teleology), Liz Spelke (principles of object individuation and perception), Derdre Gentner (on the influence of language on intuitive ontology).

Comments are closed.