Talk:Natural kind

message: "That is, they would still be groups of things, distinct from other things as a group, even if there were no people around to say that they were members of the same group. The set of people who walked across the Brooklyn Bridge sometime last June, on the other hand, almost certainly does not comprise a natural kind. A person might group those people together for some purpose like traffic-control planning, but there is no particular reason that any other person should lump those people together instead of placing them in some other grouping."
Changed nonnatural kind example from above because the current example includes people.  Since nonnatural kinds are defined as people-dependent, some confusion is possible.
----
I'm not sure the given example is 100% clear. Why should the set of objects that weigh more than 50 pounds not be a natural kind? This seems projectible in the sense that if you put any member on the set on a balance scale, it will balance or tilt the scale in its favor. And if one member of the set can be used to crush a given object, then any member of the set should be able to do the same. The grue example is clear, but I think the explanation of why the 50-pounds-or-more-set is not a natural kind is incomplete.
-Ben
----------------------------------------------------
Mention should also be made, I think, of John Dupré's book: The Disorder Of Things (Harvard University Press, 1993).
Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: Link doesn't work.
Luot (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote is invalid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Natural kind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926232508/http://web.telia.com/~u85903393/jbild/albino.jpg to http://web.telia.com/~u85903393/jbild/albino.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Natural kind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618031552/http://internalism.googlegroups.com/web/Putnam%20-%20The%20meaning%20of%20%27meaning%27.pdf?gda=twdJY1oAAABFSTngQf24Sy1RD7yNn1iVgy3Odg0ZctAT1N_Bh2qhdGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQe1sJTwbuelxnpaL6JzH4yeFMfiRQRvg6UTOJgQe0faGtRc9Sp7hcxNJ_gjwZr8bQ to http://internalism.googlegroups.com/web/Putnam%20-%20The%20meaning%20of%20%27meaning%27.pdf?gda=twdJY1oAAABFSTngQf24Sy1RD7yNn1iVgy3Odg0ZctAT1N_Bh2qhdGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQe1sJTwbuelxnpaL6JzH4yeFMfiRQRvg6UTOJgQe0faGtRc9Sp7hcxNJ_gjwZr8bQ
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I think my revision meets the need for references.TBR-qed (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing warning template 

message: This article had been using "General references", a list of source citations that are not related to specific statements in the article. More recent edits have been using footnotes generated by  tags, a form of inline citation. See WP:CITE for various citation formats in use in Wikipedia. Inline citations have certain advantages, but general references can also be used. I have placed the two in subsections of an overall References section. Editors can come to a consensus on the article talk page as to what format or formats to use, see WP:CITEVAR. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The additional problem with the extraordinarily uncommunicative way that the references have been cited is that, any normal individual examining the Wikipedia article, will form the impression that a large lump of the references are being made to a particular book. In fact, the means through which  the "information" has been recorded totally obscures the real situation: that there are three separate items, a paper by the collected works editor, and two quite separate invited papers by the individuals to whom the user has allocated an entire section of the article. Lindsay658 (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing style 

message: The section about Hilary Putnam's theories of natural kind was written with perceived future edits on the article as a whole in mind. The article as a whole needs editing to remove bias and an overall argumentative tone in favor of a more informative structure. This section does respond to some of Quine's thinking (what Putnam refers to as Quine's pessimism) but it is not intended to further argue a view on natural kind. Putnam's thought experiments (the Twin-Earth and Lemon vs. Tiger) are meant to clarify what natural kind is.Mmicah55 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The section on Putnam

message: WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM.
This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Induction & deduction