Abstract
Looking for an adequate explication of the concept of a biological function, several authors have proposed to link function to design. Unfortunately, known explications of biological design in turn refer to functions. The concept of general design I will introduce here breaks up this circle. I specify design with respect to its ontogenetic role. This allows function to be based on design without making reference to the history of the design, or to the phylogeny of an organism, while retaining the normative aspect of function ascriptions. The concept is applicable to the function and design of technical artifacts as well. Several problems well known with other definitions can be overcome by this approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen C., Bekoff M. (1995). Biological function, adaptation, and natural design. Philosophy of Science 62: 609–622
Amundson R. (2005). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought. Roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Amundson R., Lauder G.V. (1994). Function without purpose: The use of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy 9: 443–469
Bedau M. (1992). Where’s the good in teleology? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 781–805
Beckner M. (1969). Function and teleology. Journal of the History of Biology 2: 151–164
Bigelow J., PargetterR. (1987). Functions. The Journal of Philosophy 84: 181–196
Boorse C. (2002). A rebuttal on functions. In: Ariew A., Cummins R., Perlman M. (eds) Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63–112
Buller D.J. (2002). Function and design revisited. In: Ariew A., Cummins R., Perlman M. (eds) Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 222–243
Carrier M. (2000). Multiplicity and heterogeneity: On the relations between functions and their realizations. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Science 31: 179–191
Christensen W.D., Bickhard M.H. (2002). The process dynamics of normative function. The Monist 85: 3–28
Cummins R. (1975). Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765
Davidson, D. (1973). The material mind. In Essays on actions and events (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
Davidson D. (1986). Knowing one’s own mind. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 60: 441–458
Davies P.S. (2000). Malfunctions. Biology and Philosophy 15: 19–38
Davies P.S. (2001). Norms of nature: Naturalism and the nature of functions. MIT Press, Cambridge
Franssen M. (2006). The normativity of artifacts. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 37: 42–57
Gilbert S. (2006). Developmental biology (8th ed.). Sinauer, Sunderland
Godfrey-Smith P. (1993). Functions: Consensus without unity. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74: 196–208
Godfrey-Smith P. (1994). A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28: 344–362
Goodman N. (1969). Languages of art. Oxford University Press, London
Griffiths P.E. (1993). Functional analysis and proper functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 409–422
Hausman D.B. (1985). The explanation of goal-directed behavior. Synthese 65: 327–346
Hempel, C. G. (1959). The logic of functional analysis. In L. Gross (Ed.), Symposium on Sociological Theory (pp. 271–307). New York: Harper and Row. Quoted from: Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 297–330). New York: Free Press.
Kitcher P. (1993). Function and design. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18: 379–397
Krohs U. (2004). Eine Theorie biologischer Theorien. Springer, Berlin
Krohs U. (2008). Co-Designing social systems by designing technical artifacts: A conceptual approach. In: Vermaas P.E., Kroes P., Light A., Moore S.A. (eds) Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233–245
Krohs U., Kroes P. (eds) (2008). Functions in biological and artificial worlds: Comparative philosophical approaches. MIT Press, Cambridge (in press).
Lauder G.V. (1982). Historical biology and the problem of design. Journal of Theoretical Biology 97: 57–67
Lewens T. (2004). Organisms and artifacts: Design in nature and elsewhere. MIT Press, Cambridge
Love A.C. (2003). Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology. Biology and Philosophy 18: 309–345
McLaughlin P. (2001). What functions explain: Functional explanation and self-reproducing systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Millikan R.G. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. MIT Press, Cambridge
Millikan R.G. (1989). In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science 56: 288–302
Millikan R.G. (1999). Wings, spoons, pills, and quills: A pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 96: 191–206
Millikan R.G. (2002). Biofunctions: Two paradigms. In: Ariew A., Cummins R., Perlman M. (eds) Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–143
Müller G.B., Newman S.A. (eds) (2003). Origination of organismal form. MIT Press, Cambridge
Neander K. (1991). Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184
Neander K. (1995). Misrepresenting and malfunctioning. Philosophical Studies 79: 109–141
Peixoto J.P., Kettani M.A. (1973). The control of the water cycle. Scientific American 228(4): 46–61
Perlman M. (2004). The modern philosophical resurrection of teleology. The Monist 87: 3–51
Preston B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 95: 215–254
Prior E.W. (1985). What is wrong with etiological accounts of biological function? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 310–328
Robert J.S. (2004). Embryology, epigenesis, and evolution. Taking development seriously. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Salk L. (1962). Mother’s heartbeat as an imprinting stimulus. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II 24: 753–763
Schlosser G. (1998). Self-re-production and functionality: A systems-theoretical approach to teleological explanation. Synthese 116: 303–354
Sober E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. Westview Press, Boulder
Sorabji R. (1964). Function. The Philosophical Quarterly 14: 281–302
Vermaas P.E., Houkes W. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: A challenge to etiological accounts of functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 261–289
Walsh D.M., Ariew A. (1996). A taxonomy of functions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26: 493–514
West-Eberhard M.J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wouters A. (2005). The functional perspective of organismal biology. In: Reydon T.A.C., Hemerik L. (eds) Current themes in theoretical biology: A Dutch perspective. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–69
Wright L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review 82: 139–168
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krohs, U. Functions as based on a concept of general design. Synthese 166, 69–89 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9258-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9258-6