Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 39 |
| Journal | Biology and Philosophy |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 23 Sept 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2023 |
Abstract
Human interaction with the living world, in science and beyond, always involves classification. While it has been a long-standing scientific goal to produce a single all-purpose taxonomy of life to cater for this need, classificatory practice is often subject to confusion and disagreement, and many philosophers have advocated forms of classificatory pluralism. This entails that multiple classifications should be allowed to coexist, and that whichever classification is best, is context-dependent. In this paper, we discuss some practical consequences of classificatory pluralism, in particular with regard to how one is supposed to find the best classification for a given context. We do so by means of a case study concerning oaks, in particular the pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) and the sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.), two important putative species that present several classificatory challenges; and by applying one recent philosophical framework conceptualizing classification, the so-called Grounded Functionality Account (GFA) of (natural) kinds. We show how the GFA elucidates several issues related to oak classification and gives directions to optimize classificatory practices, and discuss some implications for scientific taxonomy.
Keywords
- Classification, Oaks, Pluralism, Policymaking, Taxonomy
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Philosophy
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History and Philosophy of Science
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 38, No. 5, 39, 10.2023.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - An oak is an oak, or not?
T2 - Understanding and dealing with confusion and disagreement in biological classification
AU - Cuypers, Vincent
AU - Reydon, Thomas A.C.
N1 - Funding Information: We would like to thank Stijn Conix (UCLouvain), Andreas De Block (KU Leuven), Tom Artois (Hasselt University), Charles Pence (UCLouvain), Max Bautista Perpinyà (UCLouvain), the audience of the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice biennial meeting in Ghent, Belgium (July 2022), the audience of the 2022 EASPLS summer school in Bordeaux, France (September 2022), and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this work. Funding Information: This work was supported by the Research Foundation – Flanders (Belgium) [Grant Number G0D5720N]. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
PY - 2023/10
Y1 - 2023/10
N2 - Human interaction with the living world, in science and beyond, always involves classification. While it has been a long-standing scientific goal to produce a single all-purpose taxonomy of life to cater for this need, classificatory practice is often subject to confusion and disagreement, and many philosophers have advocated forms of classificatory pluralism. This entails that multiple classifications should be allowed to coexist, and that whichever classification is best, is context-dependent. In this paper, we discuss some practical consequences of classificatory pluralism, in particular with regard to how one is supposed to find the best classification for a given context. We do so by means of a case study concerning oaks, in particular the pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) and the sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.), two important putative species that present several classificatory challenges; and by applying one recent philosophical framework conceptualizing classification, the so-called Grounded Functionality Account (GFA) of (natural) kinds. We show how the GFA elucidates several issues related to oak classification and gives directions to optimize classificatory practices, and discuss some implications for scientific taxonomy.
AB - Human interaction with the living world, in science and beyond, always involves classification. While it has been a long-standing scientific goal to produce a single all-purpose taxonomy of life to cater for this need, classificatory practice is often subject to confusion and disagreement, and many philosophers have advocated forms of classificatory pluralism. This entails that multiple classifications should be allowed to coexist, and that whichever classification is best, is context-dependent. In this paper, we discuss some practical consequences of classificatory pluralism, in particular with regard to how one is supposed to find the best classification for a given context. We do so by means of a case study concerning oaks, in particular the pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) and the sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.), two important putative species that present several classificatory challenges; and by applying one recent philosophical framework conceptualizing classification, the so-called Grounded Functionality Account (GFA) of (natural) kinds. We show how the GFA elucidates several issues related to oak classification and gives directions to optimize classificatory practices, and discuss some implications for scientific taxonomy.
KW - Classification
KW - Oaks
KW - Pluralism
KW - Policymaking
KW - Taxonomy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85171997214&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10539-023-09925-x
DO - 10.1007/s10539-023-09925-x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85171997214
VL - 38
JO - Biology and Philosophy
JF - Biology and Philosophy
SN - 0169-3867
IS - 5
M1 - 39
ER -