Nominal essences are all the essences that science needs, and some are better than others, because they capture more regularity in nature.
Dan Dennett
To explain: a “nominal essence” is just an abstract idea that humans have decided to use to pick out a particular type of thing. This is contrasted with a more Aristotelean view of essence.
Because I’m curious:
Is Dennett’s position intended to be a response to the theory of scientific incommesurability, or some other aspect of philosophy of science?
His quote is about conceptual analysis and intuition’s role in philosophy in general, and about where to draw the boundary.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Dan Dennett
To explain: a “nominal essence” is just an abstract idea that humans have decided to use to pick out a particular type of thing. This is contrasted with a more Aristotelean view of essence.
Because I’m curious:
Is Dennett’s position intended to be a response to the theory of scientific incommesurability, or some other aspect of philosophy of science?
His quote is about conceptual analysis and intuition’s role in philosophy in general, and about where to draw the boundary.