These films are analogues to minimalism in the other arts and thus give rise to the question of whether they are not actual experiments that seek to show necessary criteria for something being a film.
Others have argued that Machery's criteria for something's being a natural kind are too restrictive and that his view would have the consequence of ruling out clear cases of legitimate higher-level kinds in science generally (e.g., Gonnerman & Weinberg 2010, Margolis & Laurence 2010).
I think this debate hinges on what the criteria are for something to be considered infectious and disease-causing.
To communicate, the terms that speakers use do not have to have the same meanings, nor do speakers need to use the same criteria for identifying something as a member of a particular kind (one ornithologist might identify ducks by their beaks, another by their tails) (cf. Hoyningen-Huene 1993, 99).
"In my view, the only criteria for whether something is art is whether there has been an intervention by someone (who does not necessarily have to consider himself an artist)".
The authors should explain their criteria for scoring something as a centriole/centrosome/cilia, and show graphs of the number and size distribution of these organelles for all the expression constructs tested.
In sum, Dawkins has identified three criteria as necessary for something to be a unit of selection: it must be a replicator; it must be the most basic beneficiary of the selection process; and it is automatically the ultimate manifestor of adaptation through being the beneficiary.
Schroeter contends that the ultimate criterion for determining whether something is dangerous, for example, is whether it is liable to cause harm, where harm can be understood in response-independent terms, such as loss of bodily integrity (Schroeter 2005: 343).
"Cigarettes fit all the criteria that we have for something causing disease," Stephen tells VICE over the phone.
