Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T14:36:27.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Theoretical Motivation for Positing Etiological Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

Björn Brunnander
Björn Brunnander*
Affiliation:
Stockholm University, 106 91Stockholm, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a plain fact that biology makes use of terms and expressions commonly spoken of as teleological. Biologists frequently speak of the function of biological items. They may also say that traits are ‘supposed to’ perform some of their effects, claim that traits are ‘for’ specific effects, or that organisms have particular traits ‘in order to’ engage in specific interactions. There is general agreement that there must be something useful about this linguistic practice but it is controversial whether it is entirely appropriate, and if so why it is.

Many theorists have defended the use of seemingly teleological terms by appeal to an etiological notion of function (Wright, 1973; Millikan, 1984, 2002; Neander, 1991; Griffiths, 1993; Godfrey-Smith, 1994; and Buller, 1999). According to the etiological notion, attributing a function to a trait is a matter of pointing to effects that account for why the trait has been selected for.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 371 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, C. 2002. ‘Real Traits, Real Functions?’ In Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, Ariew, A. Cummins, R. and Perlman, M. eds. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amundson, R. and Lauder, G.V.. 1994. ‘Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology.’ Biology and Philosophy 9: 443–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayala, F. J. 1970. ‘Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology.’ Philosophy of Science 37: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigelow, J. and Pargetter, R. 1987. ‘Functions.’ Journal of Philosophy 84: 181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N. 1981. ‘Biological Teleology: Questions and Explanations.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12: 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. 1998. ‘Etiological Theories of Function: A Geographical Survey.’ Biology and Philosophy 13: 505–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, D. 1999. ‘Natural Teleology.’ In Function, Selection, and Design. Buller, D. ed. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. 1975. ‘Functional Analysis.’ The Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. 2002. ‘Neo-Teleology.’ In Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. Ariew, A. Cummins, R. and Perlman, M. eds. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, P.S. 2000a. ‘The Nature of Natural Norms: Why Selected Functions are Systemic Capacity Functions.’ Noûs 34: 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, P.S. 2000b. ‘Malfunctions.’ Biology and Philosophy 15: 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, B. and Adams, F.. 1992. ‘Functions and Goal Directedness.’ Philosophy of Science 59: 635–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 1994. ‘A Modern History Theory of Functions.’ Noûs 28: 344–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. 1993. ‘Functional Analysis and Proper Functions.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 409–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, B. 1989. ‘Functional Explanations in Sociobiology.’ Biology and Philosophy 4: 131–58.Google Scholar
Lewens, T. 2004. Organisms and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA, and London: Bradford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, K. 1963. On Aggression. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Macdonald, G. and Papineau, D.. 2006. ‘Introduction: Prospects and Problems for Teleosemantics.’ In Teleosemantics, Macdonald, G. and Papineau, D. eds, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, P. 2001. What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R.G. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories.. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R.G.. 1989. ‘In Defence of Proper Functions.,’ Philosophy of Science 56: 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R.G.. 1996. ‘On Swampkinds.’ Mind & Language 11: 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R.G.. 2002. ‘Biofunctions: Two Paradigms.’ In Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, Ariew, A. Cummins, R. and Perlman, M. eds. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S.D. 1995. ‘Functions, Fitness, and Disposition.’ Biology and Philosophy 10: 39-54. Muller, H.J. 1948. ‘Evidence of the Precision of Genetic Adaptation.’ Harvey Lectures 43: 165–229.Google Scholar
Neander, K. 1991. ‘The Teleological Notion of Function.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69: 454–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. 1995. ‘Misrepresenting & Malfunctioning.’ Philosophical Studies 79: 109–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. 1996. ‘Swampman Meets Swampcow.’ Mind & Language 11: 118–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. 2002. ‘Types of Traits: The Importance of Functional Homologues.’ In Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, Ariew, A. Cummins, R. and Perlman, M. eds. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 1993. Philosophical Naturalism. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pittendrigh, C. 1958. ‘Adaptation, Natural Selection, and Behavior.’ In Behavior and Evolution, Roe, A. and Simpson, G. G. eds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1995. Animal Behavior. Malden, MA, Oxford, Melbourne and Berlin: Blackwell. Rosenberg, A. and K. Neander. 2009. ‘Are Homologies (Selected Effect or Causal Role) Function-Free?’ Philosophy of Science 76: 307–34.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1963. ‘Biology and the Nature of Life.’ Science 139: 81-8. Wakefield, J. 1992. ‘The Concept of Mental Disorder: On the Boundary Between Biological Facts and Social Values.’ American Psychologist 47: 373–88.Google Scholar
Walsh, D. 1996. ‘Fitness and Function.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 553–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, D. and Ariew, A.. 1996. ‘A Taxonomy of Functions.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26: 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G.C. 1996/1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton and Chichester: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. 1973. ‘Functions.’ Philosophical Review 82: 139–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. 1976. Teleological Explanations: An Etiological Analysis of Goals and Functions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar