< General Discussion  JS Broader Thoughts on Rhetorical Arguments for Disciplinarity>

Hm I thought I made this page already but I guess it was never saved, which is a bummer because it was a significant diversion...

Anyway I can conceive of species concepts as being a potentially useful metaphor for interdisciplinary communities, but I think it requires thinking carefully about the features of various species concepts and the extent to which they can be applied to scientific disciplines.

Typological species concepts

• based primarily on shared characteristics
• tends to view species as "natural kinds" 
• e.g. there is something "fundamental" to a physicist that is different from other disciplines 

Biological species concept

• species are defined as non-interbreeding populations
• this paints a sad picture of scientific disciplines based on isolation and sequestration of ideas 

Phylogenetic species concepts

• species are entities that share a common ancestor
• a more historical approach to defining disciplines
• but phylogenetic species concepts tend to have problems due to reticulate evolution, the same would apply to the histories of disciplines 

Ecological species concepts

• species are classified by the spaces they inhabit and the ways they interact with those environments
• this is analogical to more sociologically driven concepts of disciplines - "physicists are what physicists do" 

The Ghiselin-Hull individuality thesis

• a more philosophically sound version of typological concepts
• species are like individuals      
• spatiotemporally localized
• with reasonably sharp beginnings and endings in time
• can undergo ontological changes
• But are species the right grain-size, what about populations? 

But most important we have to think about the reasons for choosing one over another...