David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 31 (1):113-133 (2000)
Contemporary analyses of biological function almost invariably advocate a naturalistic analysis, grounding biological functions in some feature of the mind-independent world. Many recent accounts suggest that no single analysis will be appropriate for all cases of use and that biological teleology should be split into several distinct categories. This paper argues that such accounts have paid too little attention to the way in which functional language is used, concentrating instead on the types of situation in which it is used. An example of the role of teleology in science is examined and, on the basis of conclusions drawn from this, an alternative unifying analysis is proposed. It is suggested that, contrary to naturalistic accounts, teleology in biology carries no ontological commitment whatsoever to any class of mind-independent entities or properties. Instead, it is best regarded as a methodological device which is used to focus interest, formulate research perspectives and facilitate the structuring of certain questions or types of question that are pertinent in a given context of interest.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
David Marr (1982). Vision. Freeman.
Citations of this work BETA
Philippe Huneman (2014). A Pluralist Framework to Address Challenges to the Modern Synthesis in Evolutionary Theory. Biological Theory 9 (2):163-177.
Ulrich Krohs (forthcoming). Can Functionality in Evolving Networks Be Explained Reductively? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.
L. E. Braddock (2006). Psychoanalysis as Functionalist Social Science: The Legacy of Freud's 'Project for a Scientific Psychology'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (3):394-413.
Matthew Ratcliffe (2002). Evolution and Belief: The Missing Question. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (1):133-150.
Pablo Schyfter (2015). Function by Agreement. Social Epistemology 29 (2):185-206.
Similar books and articles
Michael Bertrand (2013). Proper Environment and the SEP Account of Biological Function. Synthese 190 (9):1503-1517.
Predrag Sustar (2007). Neo‐Functional Analysis: Phylogenetical Restrictions on Causal Role Functions. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):601-615.
Peter Achinstein (1977). Function Statements. Philosophy of Science 44 (3):341-367.
Arno G. Wouters (2003). Four Notions of Biological Function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (4):633-668.
Ruth G. Millikan (1989). In Defense of Proper Functions. Philosophy of Science 56 (June):288-302.
D. M. Walsh (1996). Fitness and Function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4):553-574.
Ron Amundson & George V. Lauder (1994). Function Without Purpose. Biology and Philosophy 9 (4):443-469.
Mark Rowlands (1997). Teleological Semantics. Mind 106 (422):279-304.
Colin Allen & Marc Bekoff (1995). Biological Function, Adaptation, and Natural Design. Philosophy of Science 62 (4):609-622.
Richard N. Manning (1997). Biological Function, Selection, and Reduction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (1):69-82.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #144,741 of 1,724,752 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,121 of 1,724,752 )
How can I increase my downloads?