This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Essentialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: |
The paragraph here is grossly simplistic and in my view false. The medieval naturalists were not slavish followers of Aristotle - Frederick II in fact criticises Aristotle on natural history (which had only just been translated by Michael Scot), and none of the literature refers to the causal or generative essences of biological species at any time from the classical period until after Darwin. The myth appears to have arisen some time around the centenary of the Origin, in 1959, based on a passing comment in H. W. Joseph's Introduction to Logic in 1916.
There was, and still is, a taxonomic essentialism, in which the defining characters of a species or higher taxon are listed in describing it, but that is not the sort of essentialism attacked in the essentialism story. Types were always "more or less", and what was held to be essential to a species was the ability of the organisms to generate more like them. Morphology was only ever used for identification. I would go so far as to say that biological essentialism doesn't arise until, at the earliest, the 1890s, and probably, due to the ambiguity of the so-called essentialists' writings, not until the mid-1930s (Agnes Arber and H. R. Thompson). In short, it is based on a historical misreading.
Moreover, Aristotle was not a fixist. He accepted new species through hybridisation. Fixism arose in the mid-17th century with John Ray, and it was always based on pitey and doctrine rather than any philosophical foundation.
Later note:
I now think there never was any kind of constitutive essentialism in biology (it was always a matter of identification or diagnosis). I argue this in my book, coming out this year. Obviously as thi sis my own research I can't put it on this page, but when it is out, someone else might like to address it.
The book is Species: A history of the idea from University of California Press 2009. John Wilkins ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
The following sentence is an abomination, and almost impossible to make sense of:
"Mary P. Winsor, Ron Amundson and Staffan Müller-Wille have each argued that in fact the usual suspects (such as Linnaeus and the Ideal Morphologists) were very far from being essentialists, and it appears that the so-called "essentialism story" (or "myth") in biology is a result of conflating the views expressed by philosophers from Aristotle onwards through to John Stuart Mill and William Whewell in the immediately pre-Darwinian period, using biological examples, with the use of terms in biology like species."
Would someone who can make sense of it please edit it into 2 - 3 intelligible sentences. Thank you Justinleif ( talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4]
google scholar shows only 4 citations of [4] and I have found opposing data in
As such, I intend to revise what is said in reference to taxonomy and essentialism. I provide citations not as a gauge of credibility but so that anyone who wishes may scroll through the articles citing the original, to see all the other articles expressing agreement with the original.
I similarly intent to revise the section 'In biology':
and thus downplay the prevalence of the idea
that before evolution was developed as a scientific theory, there existed an essentialist view of biology that posited all species to be unchanging throughout time.
I welcome anyone who denies what I intend to add is true to present credible refutation. Kuiet ( talk) 04:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by this section. As far as I'm aware, the term "essentialism" is not used in mathematics or in the philosophy of math -- at least there's no reference to it in the philosophy of mathematics article. There is only one reference in the section (to an article by Folland), and Folland doesn't use the word. Can anyone clarify whether or not this section really belongs? Thanks.-- NightHeron ( talk) 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Absent any justification for keeping the section, I've removed it. The source does not say anything about essentialism in math or the philosophy of math, so this section doesn't belong, per WP:OR. NightHeron ( talk) 01:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Once again a new section is being added without any reference that uses the term "essentialism". An editor might believe that it's reasonable to use the word in this connection, but wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:VER clearly say that this is not an adequate basis for including the section. Otherwise we'd see new sections on "In Religion" (because an editor finds a quote saying "You can't say you're a Christian if you're in favor of..."), on "In Sports" (because an editor finds a quote saying "You can't say you're a Yankees fan if you're not excited about..."), on "In Scholarship" (because an editor finds a quote saying "You can't say you're a true scholar if you use the methodology of..."), and so on forever. That's why this section should be removed. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 02:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI I cut the hatnote on book
Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less because it's a redirect to the author page
Greg_McKeown_(author). In this 2015 AfD it was decided that the book is not notable in and of itself:
[1], and
WP:HAT states that Linking to redirects is typically not preferred
in hatnotes. If anyone disagrees with this edit, I'll be happy to discuss.
Generalrelative (
talk) 04:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@ NightHeron: please explain your objection. There are hundreds of sources on racial essentialism – if you think the words can be nuanced differently, please fix it. But removing scholarly sources like that seems disruptive. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)