Abstract
Using examples from functional morphology and evolution, Amundson and Lauder (Biol Philos 9: 443–469, 1994) argued for functional pluralism in biology. More specifically, they argued that both causal role (CR) analyses of function and selected effects (SE) analyses played necessary parts in evolutionary biology, broadly construed, and that neither sort of analysis was reducible to the other. Rather than thinking of these two accounts of function as rivals, they argued that they were instead complimentary. Frédéric Bouchard (Chap. 5, this volume) attempts to make that case stronger using an interesting example—the evolution of ecosystems. This case is interesting in that it involves the sudden appearance of things with functions, which also evolve, but which do not, at least initially, have a selected effect etiology. I am in complete agreement with the above-mentioned positions. Here, I take a different tack in arguing for functional pluralism. I abstract away not only from the details of biological practice but even from the details of the CR and SE accounts to argue for a more general pluralism of historical and ahistorical concepts.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
My thanks to Karen Neander for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
See Brandon (1990), chap. 5 for a detailed account.
References
Amundson, R., and G.V. Lauder. 1994. Function without purpose: The uses of casual rose function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy 9: 443–469.
Bock, W., and G. von Walhert. 1965. Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution 10: 269–299.
Brandon, R.N. 1981. Biological teleology: Questions and explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12: 91–105.
Brandon, R.N. 1990. Adaptation and environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765.
Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: Norton.
Gould, S.J., and E.S. Vrba. 1982. Exaptation–A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8(1): 4–15.
Kingsolver, J.G., and M.A.R. Koehl. 1985. Aerodynamics, thermoregulation, and the evolution of insect wings: Differential scaling and evolutionary change. Evolution 39: 488–504.
Lynch, M. 2007a. The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104: 8597–8604.
Lynch, M. 2007b. The origins of genome architecture. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Reeve, H.K., and P.W. Sherman. 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. The Quarterly Review of Biology 68(1): 1–32.
Wright, L. 1976. Teleological explanations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brandon, R.N. (2013). A General Case for Functional Pluralism. In: Huneman, P. (eds) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Synthese Library, vol 363. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5304-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5304-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5303-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5304-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)