Strevens claims that arguing about whether this is “really” a swan helps us understand the “causal-explanatory structure” of normal swans—e.g. the ways in which their properties are explained by their ancestry. To be honest, my main response here is an incredulous stare. I have no idea what valuable knowledge about swans biologists lack, which this type of philosophising has provided, or could ever provide.
I think the point was to explicate “really”, not “swan”
I think the point was to explicate “really”, not “swan”