Kinds behaving badly: intentional action and interactive kinds.

This paper investigates interactive kinds, a class of kinds suggested by Ian Hacking for which classification generates a feedback loop between the classifiers and what is classified, and argues that human interactive kinds should be distinguished from non-human ones. First, I challenge the claim th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 198; pp. 2927 - 2957
Autor principal: Allen, Sophie R.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2021 Supplement 12
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=151025614&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 151025614
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2021 Supplement 12
      vid: 198
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        151025614
        10.1007/s11229-018-1870-0
      ppf: 2927
      ppct: 30
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 607KB
      tig:
        atl: Kinds behaving badly: intentional action and interactive kinds.
      aug:
        au: Allen, Sophie R.
        affil: School of Politics, Philosophy, International Relations and Environment, Keele University, Chancellor's Building, ST5 5BG, Keele, UK
      su:
        Human behavior
        Computer hacking
        Metaphysics
      sug:
        subj:
          Human behavior
          Computer hacking
          Metaphysics
      keyword:
        Homeostatic property clusters
        Intentional action
        Interactive kinds
        Natural kinds
        Psychiatric kinds
        Social ontology
      ab: This paper investigates interactive kinds, a class of kinds suggested by Ian Hacking for which classification generates a feedback loop between the classifiers and what is classified, and argues that human interactive kinds should be distinguished from non-human ones. First, I challenge the claim that there is nothing ontologically special about interactive kinds in virtue of their members being classified as such. To do so, I reject Cooper's counterexample to Hacking's thesis that kind descriptions are necessary for intentional action, arguing that classification (although not necessarily linguistic description) is required for intentional action. Having considered ways to characterise the metaphysics of interactive kinds and the semantics of kind terms, I argue that the fact that classification facilitates intentional action makes human interactive kinds ontologically distinctive because of the anomalous nature of the change which the kind-classification brings about. I then briefly examine further distinguishing features of human interactive kinds.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2021
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N