Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T11:18:36.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functionalism and the Negative Feedback Model in Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Edward Manier
Edward Manier*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Any study of the philosophical literature dealing with the cluster of topics generally identified as ‘functional description’, ‘functional analysis’, and ‘teleological explanation’ naturally raises the problem of confirming, disconfirming, or at least relating the alternative logical models proposed by philosophers to the actual usage of biologists. A close examination of current biological literature reveals that acceptance or rejection of what philosophers or sociologists might call a ‘functionalist’ perspective or approach is not significant for the division of biologists into schools or factions. It is certainly not the case that a functionalist perspective distinguishes the wholistic or organismic faction from the molecular biologists. In fact, molecular biologists shift back and forth from ‘functional’ to simple causal perspectives with considerable indifference. This is particularly true of the literature based upon the so-called operon hypothesis developed by the Nobel laureates Jacob and Monod.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 225 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

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

*

Research supported in part by NSF Grant GS 1236 and the O'Brien Fund, University of Notre Dame.

References

Beckner, M., The Biological Way of Thought, Berkeley 1968.Google Scholar
Beckner, M., ‘Function and Teleology’, Journal of the History of Biology 2 (1969) 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canfield, J., ‘Teleological Explanation in Biology’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14 (1964) 285-95. 327-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canfield, J. (ed.), Purpose in Nature, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1966.Google Scholar
Darlington, C. D., Evolution of Genetic Systems, London 1958.Google Scholar
Fisk, M., ‘Analyticity and Conceptual Revision’, Journal of Philosophy 53 (1966) 627-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R., ‘The Brain as an Engineering Problem’, in Current Problems in Animal Behavior (ed. by Thorpe, W. and Zangwill, O.), Cambridge 1961.Google Scholar
Hadorn, E., Developmental Genetics and Lethal Factors, London 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, P. and Suskind, S., Gene Action, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1966.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., ‘The Logic of Functional Analysis’, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York 1965.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. and Monod, J., ‘Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthesis of Proteins’, Journal of Molecular Biology 3 (1961) 318-56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, H., ‘Functional Explanation in Biology’, Philosophy of Science 32 (1965) 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehman, H., ‘On the Form of Explanation in Evolutionary Theory’, Theoria 1 (1966) 14–24.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R., ‘Evolution and the Theory of Games’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 1 (1961) 328-403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manier, E., ‘The Experimental Method in Biology: T. H. Morgan and the Theory of the Gene’, Synthese 20 (1969) 185-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manier, E., ‘“Fitness” and Some Explanatory Patterns in Biology’, Synthese 20 (1969) 206-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manier, E., ‘Comments on Historical and Functional Aspects of Explanation in Biology’, Journal of the History of Biology 2 (1969) 206-13.Google Scholar
Nagel, E., ‘A Formalization of Functionalism’, in Logic Without Metaphysics, Glencoe, Ill. 1956.Google Scholar
Nagel, E., The Structure of Science, New York 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quastler, H., ‘General Principles of Systems Analysis’, in Theoretical and Mathematical Biology (ed. by Waterman, T. H. and Morowitz, H. J.), New York 1965.Google Scholar
Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N. and Bigelow, J., ‘Behavior, Purpose, and Teleology’ Philosophy of Science 10 (1943) 18-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, I., ‘Thoughts on Teleology’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9 (1958) 265-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, I., The Anatomy of Inquiry, New York 1963.Google Scholar
Scriven, M., ‘Explanation and Prediction in Evolutionary Theory’, Science 130 (1959) 477-82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, G. G., This View of Life, New York 1963.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C., Philosophy and Scientific Realism, New York 1963.Google Scholar
Taylor, R., Action and Purpose, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1966.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H., The Strategy of the Genes, London 1957.Google Scholar
Waterman, T. H., ‘Systems Analysis and the Visual Orientation of Animals’, American Scientist 54 (1966) 15-45.Google Scholar
Williams, G., Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton 1966.Google Scholar
Wynne-Edwards, V., Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour, London 1962.Google Scholar
Young, J. Z., A Model of the Brain, London 1964.Google Scholar