WHY ARE SOME KINDS HISTORICAL AND OTHERS NOT? LAURA FRANKLIN-HALL NEW YORK UNIVERSITY APRIL 2015

Why are some kinds Historical and Others Not?

Why are some kinds Historical and Others Not?Laura Franklin-HallNew York UniversityApril 2015Scientific Classifications

granular materialsfundamental particlesgeneseven-toed ungulatesNiger-Congo languagesDifferences Between ClassificationsFine-grained or coarse-grainedStructural vs. functionalArchitectonic vs. simpleEssentialist vs. non-essentialistHistorical vs. synchronic

Fine-grained or coarse-grainedStructural vs. functionalArchitectonic vs. simpleEssentialist vs. non-essentialistHistorical vs. synchronic

Differences Between ClassificationsA full theory of classification would account for all of these differencesFine-grained or coarse-grainedStructural vs. functionalArchitectonic vs. simpleEssentialist vs. non-essentialistHistorical vs. synchronic

Differences Between ClassificationsMy focus: to explore and rationalize this differencePlanStep 1: Characterize synchronic vs. historicalStep 2: Ask why classifications are sometimes historical and sometimes synchronicStep 3: Use the Probability-Similarity Account (PSA) to answer this questionStep 4: Rationalize and defend the PSAStep 5: Consider implications for the mind-dependence of the natural kinds1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalSynchronic Classification

Key property is a feature of the classified individuals grounded synchronicallyHistorical Classification

Key property is a historical feature of the individuals classified usually descent via reproductionNot exhaustive: there could be a future classification where things are grouped in terms of what they will bring about.Also, there are mixed cases: e.g., metamorphic rocks

1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalSynchronic ClassificationHistorical ClassificationBacterial species by nuclear DNA sequence

Molecules by constituent atoms plus bonding

Gaits by leg-lift patterns

Metazoan species by descent from a founding population

Words by sound / meaning hybrid in a language, with languages individuated by history

Cultural items by origins

1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalSynchronic ClassificationHistorical ClassificationBacterial species by nuclear DNA sequence



Metazoan species by descent from a founding population

Words by sound / meaning hybrid in a language, with languages individuated by history


To be explored later.1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalSynchronic ClassificationBacterial species by nuclear DNA sequence



CaffeineFormula: C8H10N4O2IUPAC ID: 1,3,7-Trimethylpurine-2,6-dioneTo count as caffeine, a substance must just be made of such molecules. Its origin can be either natural or artificial.1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalSynchronic ClassificationBacterial species by nuclear DNA sequence

Molecules by constituent atoms plus topology


The gallopA four-beat gait in which all feet are briefly off the ground at the same timeFor a motion to count as a gallop, it doesnt matter how the animal learned the process or anything else about its ontogeny.1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalHistorical ClassificationMetazoan species by descent from a founding population

Words by meaning/ sound hybrid in a language, with languages individuated by history


Word

Language Tree+in a language (defined by origins)False cognates are not instances of the same wordi.e., much and mucho1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalHistorical ClassificationMetazoan species by descent from a founding population

Words by meaning/ sound hybrid in a language, with languages individuated by history


Holiday The Day of the Dead (Dia de Muertos) Originated in southern Mexico, from a Aztec rite.Hybridized with All Souls Day.Spread through Latin America where the same holiday is celebrated.Similar in practice and belief to other holidays found elsewhere (e.g., the Ghost Festival in China); also involve honoring ancestors. 1: Synchronic vs. HistoricalCaveats

controversy about the key property for some classifications. I have tried to presume the dominant view.

In biology, controversy about whether classifications correspond to kinds or individuals. I dont think this difference makes a difference and will put it aside.

2: the explanatory QuestionWhy are some categories in use by scientists historical and others synchronic?

(I say in use by because there is some sense that both historical and synchronic categories could be applied to any science. The question is which kind of category actually gets developed.)

Presuming, as many naturalistic philosophers do, that the natural kinds correspond to the categories in use by mature sciences, this question also permits us to query why some natural kinds are historical and others not.2: the explanatory QuestionWhy are some categories in use by scientists historical and others synchronic?

Obvious reply

Categories are historical in historical sciences and synchronic otherwise

No: all historical sciences that aim to account for causal change will require synchronic categories as well

Biology, Linguistics and Anthropology all have synchronic categories alongside their historical ones.

163: The Probability-Similarity AccountMy proposal: for any domain of individuals, scientific classifications of those individuals will be historical whenever

The Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES) is very small

They are synchronic whenever

PIES is not very small

3: The Probability-Similarity AccountThe Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)


What does this mean?3: The Probability-Similarity AccountWhat does this mean?The Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccounttimeWhat does this mean?The Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccounttimeWhat does this mean?The Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccounttimeWhat does this mean?single eventCase 1:not independentMost likely: reproductive lineageThe Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccounttimeWhat does this mean?event 2Case 2: independentevent 1The Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccounttimeWhat does this mean?event 2Case 2: independentevent 1N.B.: These cartoons paper over many issues, some of which will be addressed shortlyThe Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccounttimeWhat does this mean?event 2Case 2: independentevent 1The Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

PIES is high when CASE 2 is likely Synchronic kinds

PIES is low when CASE 2 is unlikely Historical Kinds

We often judge probabilities based on frequencies, but they can come apart.Use this to display the subjective dimensions of PIES263: The Probability-Similarity AccountIllustration: atoms

Probability that similar individual atoms (e.g., elements) comes about in independent origination events is high. Thus, their kinds (the elements) are synchronic.

Evidence: frequencies track probabilities and many atoms of any elements have had separate originations; some in one supernova, others in another, others via radioactive decay.

3: The Probability-Similarity AccountIllustration: atoms

Probability that similar individual atoms (e.g., elements) comes about in independent origination events is high. Thus, their kinds (the elements) are synchronic.

Explanation: unlike with solar systems: small variations in initial conditions for the generation of an atom can still yield identical atoms; this traces ultimately to the quantum nature of our universe (see Ghirardi 2007)

3: The Probability-Similarity AccountIllustration: organisms

Probability that similar individual organisms (e.g., species) comes about independently is low. Thus, organisms are divided into historical kinds: the species.

Evidence: frequencies track probabilities and famously there are no instances of strong convergence between organisms with different origins.

3: The Probability-Similarity AccountIllustration: organisms

Probability that similar individual organisms (e.g., species) comes about independently is low. Thus, organisms are divided into historical kinds: the species.

Explanation: Many small and undirected modifications are required to result in any given form. That these would be identical modifications in two lines is highly unlikely.



REACTION:

SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE, BUT WHAT DETERMINES THESE PROBABILIIES?3: The Probability-Similarity AccountThe Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

MY ANSWER:

A COMBINATION OF THE CAUSAL FEATURES OF SYSTEMS AND FEATURES OF US: OUR GAZE, OUR NOTION OF INDEPENCENCE, OUR STANDARDS FOR SIMILARITIESREACTION:

SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE, BUT WHAT DETERMINES THESE PROBABILIIES?4: Defending the AccountTwo-part defense of the PIES standard:

Saves the phenomena: looks at different scientific examples, and see whether PIES tracks classification-type

Rationalize the principle: argue that it makes sense for practice to respect it

4: Defending the AccountTwo-part defense of the PIES standard:


4: Defending the AccountThe case of biology1. Eukaryotic Species

2. Bacterial Species

3. Plant Species

4. Kinds in Astrobiology

5. Kinds for Convergence-Lovers

6. Lamarckian Species

Saving the Phenomena4: Defending the Account1. Eukaryotic Species

Saving the Phenomena The species of an organism is most often taken to be a function of its history (phylogenetic species concept)

An organisms synchronic properties are not relevant to questions of its species membership

CLASSIFICATION TYPE: HISTORICAL37

4: Defending the Account1. Eukaryotic Species

Saving the Phenomenaswamp pig not a pig

snail-born-of-pig is a pig

Mom!CLASSIFICATION TYPE: HISTORICAL The species of an organism is most often taken to be a function of its history (phylogenetic species concept)

An organisms synchronic properties are not relevant to questions of its species membership

384: Defending the Account1. Eukaryotic Species

Saving the Phenomena

PIES Analysis: The probability of the evolution of any very complex package of traits, such as are found among pigs, is extreme low. (cf Dollos law) historical kindsEXPLANATION394: Defending the Account2. Bacterial Species


Bacterial treeThe official definition of bacterial species depends on similarity between genomes*.

An organisms history is not strictly relevant to species membership.

*70% DNA molecule cross-hybridization, which occurs with approximates 95% nucleotide identity CLASSIFICATION TYPE: SYNCHRONIC

4: Defending the Account2. Bacterial Species


Bacterial tree

swamp E. coli and E.coli-borne-of-staph are E. coliCLASSIFICATION TYPE: SYNCHRONIC

Mom!

staphThe official definition of bacterial species depends on similarity between genomes*.

An organisms history is not strictly relevant to species membership.

4: Defending the Account2. Bacterial Species


Top: transduction

Bottom: conjugationSpeciation via non-reproductive gene transfer (aka Lateral Gene Transfer or LGT).

This makes it comparatively easy to get the same set of traits in separate lineagesEXPLANATION4: Defending the Account2. Bacterial Species


Top: transduction

Bottom: conjugationPIES Analysis: The probability of the repeated independent emergence of a particular package of traits, such as are found among E. coli, is not extremely low synchronic kindsSpeciation via non-reproductive gene transfer (aka Lateral Gene Transfer or LGT).

This makes it comparatively easy to get the same set of traits in separate lineagesEXPLANATION4: Defending the Account3. Plant Species

Saving the PhenomenaRecurrent speciation in some plant species; botanists studying these species consider products to be single species with multiple origins.

The same species can actually form multiple timesRecurrent speciation [] is the rule, not the exception

CLASSIFICATION TYPE: SYNCHRONIC4: Defending the Account3. Plant Species

Saving the PhenomenaHybridizationPIES Analysis: Hybrid speciation increases likelihood of similar entities with independent origins Synchronic kinds

T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius were introduced from Europe into Eastern Washington/Idaho in the early 1900s. Two polyploid hybids, T. miscellus and T. mirus, came about many times when ranges overlapped.EXPLANATION4: Defending the Account4. Astrobiological Groupings (species?)

Saving the PhenomenaAstrobiologistsunlike most others who think about the life sciencessometimes talk of a periodic table of organisms.

They dont know just what the bins in this table will be due to the n=1 problem (i.e., our only examples of living things are from earth)

But they imagine that being in a bin is grounded synchronically, not via history.

CLASSIFICATION TYPE: SYNCHRONIC4: Defending the Account4. Astrobiological Groupings (species?)


EXPLANATION

Focus on such an enormous sample space, in concert with low standards of similarityPIES Analysis: Broad sample space makes similar organisms with independent origins less unlikely synchronic kinds4: Defending the Account5. Categories among the convergence-obsessed

Saving the PhenomenaHeterodox biologists (Conway Morris and McGhee) have also tried to design a periodic table of life.

Membership in a bin depends on synchronic properties, not history.

CLASSIFICATION TYPE: SYNCHRONIC4: Defending the Account5. Categories among the convergence-obsessed

Saving the PhenomenaEXPLANATION

These scientists believe that strong convergence is likely (e.g., similar forms will evolve via very different lineages). They also have in mind comparatively weak standards for similarity.PIES Analysis: Peculiar causal theory + weak standard for similarity makes PIES high synchronic kinds4: Defending the Account6. Lamarckian Species

Saving the Phenomena4: Defending the Account6. Lamarckian Species


Chapter 4, On the Origin of SpeciesDARWINS VIEW:LIFES TREEtime

4: Defending the AccountSaving the PhenomenatimepresentLAMARCKS VIEW:LIFES REEDS6. Lamarckian Species

These are separately-originating reed-like lineages

4: Defending the AccountSaving the PhenomenatimeSimilar individuals can have independent origins. When L talks about species he is using a synchronic conception. He has a false view of origins, but he is still following the PIES principle. present6. Lamarckian Species

CLASSIFICATION TYPE: SYNCHRONICThese are separately-originating reed-like lineagesLAMARCKS VIEW:LIFES REEDS4: Defending the Account1. Eukaryotic Species

2. Prokaryotic Species

3. Plant Species

4. Kinds in Astrobiology

5. Kinds for convergence-lovers

6. Lamarckian SpeciesThe case of biology - RECAPSYNCHRONICSYNCHRONICSYNCHRONICSYNCHRONICSYNCHRONICHISTORICALSaving the Phenomena4: Defending the AccountSaving the PhenomenaThe Probability of the Independent Emergence of Similar things (PIES)

MY ANSWER:

A COMBINATION OF THE CAUSAL FEATURES OF SYSTEMS AND FEATURES OF US: OUR GAZE,OUR NOTION OF INDEPENCENCE, OUR STANDARDS FOR SIMILARITIESREACTION:

SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE, BUT WHAT DETERMINES THESE PROBABILIIES?4: Defending the AccountSaving the PhenomenaCAUSAL FACTS (C)

GAZE (G)

SIMILARITY STANDARDS (S)

INDEPENDENCE CONDITIONS (I)4: Defending the AccountThe case of biology - RECAP1. Eukaryotic Speciesnone

2. Prokaryotic Speciescausal dif, demanding notion of I

3. Plant Species causal dif, demanding notion of I

4. Kinds in Astrobiologyweak S, wide gaze

5. Kinds for convergence-loverscausal dif, weak S

6. Lamarckian Speciescausal dif

Saving the PhenomenaDIAGNOSIS4: Defending the AccountThe case of linguistics1. Most words

2. Sounds

3. Huh?Saving the Phenomena4: Defending the Account1. Most words

Saving the PhenomenaGroupings of utterances into words has historical component

Illustration: false cognates are not considered to be instances of the same word, even though they can (in the extreme) be signs that both share sound and meaning.

Explanation: arbitrariness of connection between sign and signifier makes sound-meaning combinations with independent origins unlikely

much (13th c.) < southern Middle English muchel (where u is actually front[y]; 12th c.) < Old English miel big < Proto-Germanic *mikilaz (cf.Gothic mikils) < Proto-Indo-European *me- (cf. Greek mgas and Latinmagnus, both big, and Hittite mk much)12Spanish mucho < *muito (cf. Portuguese muito and the Spanish adverb muy,which was truncated in unstressed position in rapid speech) < Latinmultum much < *mol-to-; the root is PIE *mel-, which appears also inLatin melior better (> Spanish mejor)

4: Defending the Account2. Sounds

Saving the PhenomenaIndividual sounds are not classified in a way that depends on history

Most sounds have multiple origins in different language systems

4: Defending the AccountThe case of linguistics3. Huh?

Saving the PhenomenaThe exception proves the rule: the word huh does have independent origins, and is not considered a false cognate but instead a universal word.

Why? Strong selection pressures on this utterance made similarity in the face of independent origins likely.4: Defending the AccountTwo-part defense of the PIES standard:


Rationalize the principle: argue that it makes sense for practice to respect it

STRATEGY: point to two scientific goals accomplished by using historical categories when PIES

Documents

WHY ARE SOME KINDS HISTORICAL AND OTHERS NOT? LAURA FRANKLIN-HALL NEW YORK UNIVERSITY APRIL 2015