Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:33:10.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Modal Theory of Function Is Not about Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marc Artiga
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a series of papers, Bence Nanay has recently put forward and defended a new theory of function, which he calls the ‘Modal Theory of Function’. In this article, I critically address this theory and argue that it fails to fulfill some key desiderata that a satisfactory theory of function must comply with. As a result, I conclude that, whatever property Nanay’s notion of function refers to, it is not the property having the function that is standardly attributed in science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 580 - 591
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Vincenzo Fano, David Pineda, Monolo Martínez, José Diez, Giuliano Torrengo, and the audience of the II Barcelona-Urbino Meeting for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Ariew, André, Cummins, Robert, and Perlman, Mark, eds. 2002. Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buller, David J. 1998. “Etiological Theories of Function: A Geographical Survey.” Biology and Philosophy 13:505–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Wayne, and Bickhard, Mark. 2002. “The Process Dynamics of Normative Function.” Monist 85 (1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Anthony. 1986. “Interactions between Adult Male and Infant Yellow Baboons (Papio c. cynocephalus) in Tanzania.” Animal Behavior 34:430–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Robert. 1975. “Functional Analysis.” Journal of Philosophy 72:741–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deag, John, and Crook, John H.. 1971. “Social Behaviour and ‘Agonistic Buffering’ in the Wild Barbary Macaque, Macaca sylvana.” Folia Primatologica 15:183–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 1993. “Functions: Consensus without Unity.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74:196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardcastle, Valerie G. 2002. “On the Normativity of Functions.” In Ariew et al. 2002, 144–57.Google Scholar
Kiritani, Osamu. 2011a. “Function and Modality.” Journal of Mind and Behavior 32 (1): 1–4.Google Scholar
Kiritani, Osamu 2011b. “Modality and Function: Reply to Nanay.” Journal of Mind and Behavior 32 (2): 89–90.Google Scholar
Lauritzen, Dean, Hertel, Fritz, Jordan, Laura K., and Gordon, Malcolm. 2010. “Salmon Jumping: Behavior, Kinematics and Optimal Conditions, with Possible Implications for Fish Passageway Design.” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 5 (3): 035006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, Peter. 2001. What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 1989. “In Defense of Proper Functions.” Philosophy of Science 56 (2): 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 1999. “Wings, Spoons, Pills and Quills: A Pluralist Theory of Functions.” Journal of Philosophy 96 (4): 191–206.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 2002. “Biofunctions: Two Paradigms.” In Ariew et al. 2002, 113–44.Google Scholar
Mossio, Matteo, Saborido, Cristian, and Moreno, Álvaro. 2009. “An Organizational Account of Biological Functions.” British Society for the Philosophy of Science 60:813–41.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1977. “Functional Explanations in Biology.” Journal of Philosophy 74 (5): 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence. 2010. “A Modal Theory of Function.” Journal of Philosophy 107:412–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence 2011. “Function, Modality and Mental Content.” Journal of Mind and Behavior 32:84–87.Google Scholar
Nanay, Bence 2012. “Function Attribution Depends on the Explanatory Context.” Journal of Philosophy 109:623–27.Google Scholar
Nanay, Bence 2013. “Artifact Categorization and the Modal Theory of Artifact Function.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4:515–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence 2014. “Teleosemantics without Etiology.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, Karen. 1991. “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense.” Philosophy of Science 58:168–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, Karen, and Rosenberg, Alex. 2012. “Solving the Circularity Problem for Functions: A Response to Nanay.” Journal of Philosophy 109 (10): 613–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Martin. 2005. “The Role of Eyespots as Anti-predator Mechanisms, Principally Demonstrated in the Lepidoptera.” Biological Reviews 80 (4): 573–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taub, David M. 1980. “Testing the ‘Agonistic Buffering’ Hypothesis.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 6:187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallin, Adrian, Jakobsson, Sven, Lind, Johan, and Wiklund, Christer. 2005. “Prey Survival by Predator Intimidation: An Experimental Study of Peacock Butterfly Defence against Blue Tits.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272 (1569): 1203–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Wouters, Arno. 2005. “The Function Debate in Philosophy.” Acta Biotheoretica 53 (2): 123–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, Larry. 1973. “Functions.” Philosophical Review 82 (2): 139–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar