Graduate studies at Western
Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):39-54 (1995)
|Abstract||In this paper I discuss recent debates concerning etiological theories of functions. I defend an etiological theory against two criticisms, namely the ability to account for malfunction, and the problem of structural doubles. I then consider the arguments provided by Bigelow and Pargetter (1987) for a more forward looking account of functions as propensities or dispositions. I argue that their approach fails to address the explanatory problematic for which etiological theories were developed.|
|Keywords||Function fitness dispositions explanation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Craig S. Delancey (2006). Ontology and Teleofunctions: A Defense and Revision of the Systematic Account of Teleological Explanation. Synthese 150 (1):69 - 98.
D. M. Walsh (1996). Fitness and Function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4):553-574.
Osamu Kiritani (2011). Function and Modality. Journal of Mind and Behavior 32 (1):1-4.
Osamu Kiritani (2011). Modality and Function: Reply to Nanay. Journal of Mind and Behavior 32 (2):89-90.
Paul E. Griffiths (1993). Functional Analysis and Proper Functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (3):409-422.
Pieter E. Vermaas & Wybo Houkes (2003). Ascribing Functions to Technical Artefacts: A Challenge to Etiological Accounts of Functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2):261-289.
Gerhard Schlosser (1998). Self-Re-Production and Functionality. Synthese 116 (3):303-354.
Peter H. Schwartz (1999). Proper Function and Recent Selection. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):222.
Andre Ariew (2009). What Fitness Can't Be. Erkenntnis 71 (3):289 - 301.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #71,310 of 739,367 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,367 )
How can I increase my downloads?