Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:56:33.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Logical Structure of Functional Explanations in Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Mary B. Williams
Mary B. Williams*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The philosophical literature is heavy with discussions of the logical structure of various proposed schema of functional explanation (most of which are modifications of Hempel's schema [7]) but it is very light on detailed analysis of the way in which these schema actually work or the way in which they apply to the instances in which functional explanations are used by scientists. These papers use statements by scientists ascribing particular functions to particular traits, along with intuitions about the way in which ‘function’ is used in ordinary language, to ascertain the referents of the term and thus to determine the class of uses against which any schema should be tested; but such examples only show whether the schema under discussion refer to the same things as those the scientists’ refer to; they do not show whether the logical structure of the schema really captures the logical structure underlying the scientists’ use.

Type
Part II. Explanation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1976 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1976 , 1976 , pp. 36 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by 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.)

References

Baublys, K.K. “Comments on Some Recent Analyses of Functional Statements in Biology.” Philosophy of Science 42 (1975): 469-486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorse, Christopher. “Wright on Functions.” The Philosophical Review LXXXV (1976): 70-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Baruch. “The Reduction of Teleological Sciences ” American Philosophical Quarterly 12 (1975): 69-76.Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert. “Functional Analysis”. The Journal of Philosophy LXXII (1975): 741-765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, E.B. Ecological Genetics. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H.G. and Poole, B. “Functional Analyses in Biology.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (1966-67): 69-72.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. “The Logic of Functional Analysis.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: MacMillan, 1965. Pages 297-330.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael. The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson, 1973.Google Scholar
Williams, George C. Group Selection. New York: Atherton, 1971.Google Scholar
Williams, Mary B. “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29 (1970): 343-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Mary B. “The Logical Status of the Theory of Natural Selection and Other Evolutionary Controversies: Resolution by Axiomatization.” In The Methodological Unity of Science. Edited by Bunge, M.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1973. Pages 84-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Mary B. “Darwinian Selection for Self-Limiting Populations.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 55 (1975): 415-430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William. “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3 (1972): 1-80.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry. “Functions.” Philosophical Review LXXXII (1973): 139-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar