Abstract
When do the folk think that material objects persist? Many metaphysicians have wanted a view which fits with folk intuitions, yet there is little agreement about what the folk intuit. I provide a range of empirical evidence which suggests that the folk operate with a teleological view of persistence: the folk tend to intuit that a material object survives alterations when its function is preserved. Given that the folk operate with a teleological view of persistence, I argue for a debunking explanation of folk intuitions, concluding that metaphysicians should dismiss folk intuitions as tied into a benighted view of nature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I’ve only offered a brief sampling of disputes over the common sense view of persistence. For more, see the excellent discussion in Sidelle (2002).
For full cases, see Appendix.
A total of 330 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions in a 3 (Function: None, Replacement Preserves Function, Original Parts Preserves Function) \(\times \) 3 (Object Type: Rowboat, Organism, Rock) design. After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with either Andy or Suzy. They were then taken to a separate screen where they were asked comprehension questions (see appendix for details). Ten people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 320 responses. The results indicated that there was a large-sized effect of Function, F(2, 311) = 33.568, p \(<\) .001, \(\upeta \!\hbox {p}^{2}=0.178\); no effect of Object Type, F(2, 311) = 2.832, p \(>\) .05; and no interaction between Function and Type of Object, F(4, 311) = 258, p \(>\) .05.
Rowboat: Planned pairwise comparisons in the Rowboat condition revealed a large-sized significant difference between Replacement Preserves Function (M = 2.79, SD = 1.77) and Original Parts Preserves Function (M = 5.03, SD = 2.22), t(67) = 4.60, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.11; a medium-sized significant difference between No Function (M = 3.75, SD = 2.06) and Original Parts Preserves Function, t(68) = 2.50, p \(<\) .01, d = 0.61; and a medium-sized significant difference between No Function and Replacement Preserves Function, t(67) = 2.04, p \(<\) .05, d = 0.50.
Organism: Planned pairwise comparisons in the Organism condition revealed a large-sized significant difference between Replacement Preserves Function (M = 2.94, SD = 1.63) and Original Parts Preserves Function (M = 4.81, SD = 1.95), t(72) = 4.45, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.04; a medium-sized significant difference between No Function (M = 3.72, SD = 2.09) and Original Parts Preserves Function, t(67) = 2.24, p \(<\) .05, d = 0.54; and a small-sized marginally significant difference between No Function and Replacement Preserves Function, t(67) = 1.72, p = .09, d = 0.41.
Rock: Planned pairwise comparisons in the Rock condition revealed a large-sized significant difference between Replacement Preserves Function (M = 3.27, SD = 2.06) and Original Parts Preserves Function (M = 5.75, SD = 1.81), t(71) = 5.45, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.28; a large-sized significant difference between No Function (M = 4.16, SD = 2.12) and Original Parts Preserves Function, t(71) = 3.43, p \(<\) .01, d = 0.81; and a small-sized marginally significant difference between No Function and Replacement Preserves Function, t(72) = 1.83, p = .07, d = 0.43.
Throughout, I will be reporting effect sizes for significant effects. I’ll be reporting partial Eta squared \((\upeta \!\hbox {p}^{2})\) and Cohen’s d. \(\upeta \!\hbox {p}^{2}\) indicates the amount of variance in the dependent variable explained by a given independent variable while Cohen’s d indicates the magnitude of the mean difference between two groups. I’ll follow Ellis (2010) for interpreting the magnitude of effect sizes. For \(\upeta \!\hbox {p}^{2}\) I’ll interpret values greater than or equal to 0.14 as large, greater than or equal to 0.06 but less than 0.14 as medium, and greater than or equal to 0.01 but less than 0.06 as small. And for Cohen’s d I’ll interpret values greater than or equal to 0.8 as large, greater than or equal to 0.5 but less than 0.8 as medium, and greater than or equal to 0.2 but less than 0.5 as small.
A total of 310 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions in a 3 (Function: None, Replacement Preserves Function, Original Parts Preserves Function) \(\times \) 3 (Object Type: Rowboat, Organism, Rock) design. After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with either Andy or Suzy. They were then taken to a separate screen where they were asked comprehension questions (see appendix for details). Thirteen people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 297 responses. The results indicated that there was a large-sized effect of Function, F(2, 288) = 34.475, p \(<\) .001, \(\upeta \!\hbox {p}^{2} = 0.193\); no effect of Object Type, F(2, 288) = 2.592, p \(>\) .05; and no interaction between Function and Type of Object, F(4, 288) = 0.088, p \(>\) .05.
Rowboat: Planned pairwise comparisons in the Rowboat condition revealed a large-sized significant difference between Replacement Preserves Function (M = 2.78, SD = 2.01) and Original Parts Preserves Function (M = 4.85, SD = 1.91), t(64) = 4.27, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.05; a medium-sized significant difference between No Function (M = 3.74, SD = 2.16) and Original Parts Preserves Function, t(65) = 2.50, p \(<\) .05, d = 0.55; and a small-sized marginally significant difference between No Function and Replacement Preserves Function, t(65) = 1.85, p = .07, d = 0.46.
Organism: Planned pairwise comparisons in the Organism condition revealed a large-sized significant difference between Replacement Preserves Function (M = 3.15, SD = 1.82) and Original Parts Preserves Function (M = 5.57, SD = 1.65), t(66) = 5.75, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.39; a medium-sized significant difference between No Function (M = 4.37, SD = 2.06) and Original Parts Preserves Function, t(68) = 2.69, p \(<\) .01, d = 0.64; and a medium-sized significant difference between No Function and Replacement Preserves Function, t(66) = 2.58, p \(<\) .05, d = 0.63.
Rock: Planned pairwise comparisons in the Rock condition revealed a large-sized significant difference between Replacement Preserves Function (M = 3.10, SD = 1.78) and Original Parts Preserves Function (M = 5.39, SD = 1.66), t(59) = 5.17, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.32; a medium-sized significant difference between No Function (M = 4.27, SD = 1.89) and Original Parts Preserves Function, t(62) = 2.49, p \(<\) .05, d = 0.62; and a medium-sized significant difference between No Function and Replacement Preserves Function, t(61) = 2.52, p \(<\) .05, d = 0.64.
For full cases, see Appendix.
A total of 95 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (Function: Lost, Preserved). After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they thought the rock survived or was destroyed. They were then taken to a separate screen where they were asked two comprehension questions (displayed on separate screens):
-
(1)
John’s experiment worked. (Yes/No)
-
(2)
John hit a rock with a hammer and broke it into three pieces. (Yes/No)
Seven people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 88 responses. The results indicated that there was a large-sized effect of whether the rock Lost (M = 4.93, SD = 1.92) or Preserved (M = 3.27, SD = 1.84) its function, t(86) = 4.13, p \(<\) .001, d = 0.88.
-
(1)
For full cases, see Appendix.
A total of 95 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (Control, Loss of Function). After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they thought the rock survived or was destroyed. They were then taken to a separate screen where they were asked two comprehension questions (each displayed on a separate screen):
-
(1)
John’s experiment worked. (Yes/No)
-
(2)
John hit a rock with a hammer. (Yes/No)
Six people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 89 responses. The results indicated that there was a large-sized significant difference between the Control (M = 2.06, SD = 1.54) and Loss of Function Cases (M = 4.56, SD = 2.10), t(87) = 6.40, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.36.
-
(1)
A total of 95 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (Control, Pulverized). After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they thought the rock survived or was destroyed. They were then taken to a separate screen where they were asked two comprehension questions (each displayed on a separate screen):
-
(1)
John’s experiment worked. (Yes/No)
-
(2)
John hit a rock with a hammer. (Yes/No)
Four people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 91 responses. The results indicated that there was a large-sized significant difference between the Control (M = 5.58, SD = 1.30) and Pulverized Cases (M = 3.73, SD = 2.24), t(89) = 4.76, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.01.
-
(1)
For full cases, see Appendix.
A total of 180 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (Function: Lost, Preserved) \(\times \) 2 (Damage Type: Denting, Pulverizing) design. After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with either John or Frank. They were then taken to a separate screen where they were asked two comprehension questions (each displayed on a separate screen):
-
(1)
John is a geologist. (Yes/No)
-
(2)
Frank broke the rock into tiny pieces. (Yes/No)
Twelve people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 168 responses. The results indicated that there was a large-sized effect of Function, F(1, 164) = 40.842, p \(<\) .001, \(\upeta \!\hbox {p}^{2} = 0.199\); no effect of Damage Type, F(1, 164) = 0.467, p \(>\) .05; and no interaction between Function and Damage Type, F(1, 164) = 0.049, p \(>\) .05. Planned pairwise comparisons revealed a large-sized significant difference between Loss (M = 3.53, SD = 2.09) and Preservation of Function (M = 5.26, SD = 1.73) in the Denting Condition, t(80) = 4.03, p \(<\) .001, d = 0.91 and a large-sized significant difference between Loss(M = 3.28, SD = 1.84) and Preservation of Function (M = 5.13, SD = 1.51) in the Pulverizing Condition, t(84) = 5.09, p \(<\) .001, d = 1.09.
-
(1)
Relatedly, one might wonder whether the above results even support the view that an objects function or purpose affects folk judgments of persistence. Instead, it may be that the preservation or loss of any salient feature or property of an object serves as a criterion in folk judgments of persistence. There is, however, considerable reason to doubt that this is the case given the background psychological literature on the role of teleology in our conception of objects. Nonetheless, I looked at vignettes where the rock changed/preserved owners, just to check that people weren’t blindly picking up on whatever the vignette discussed as a criterion for persistence. As expected there was no effect of ownership on persistence judgments (see Appendix).
Connected to this, Rose and Schaffer (2014) found no effect of contact or fusion, of familiarity or labeling or of quantifier restrictions on folk judgments of mereological composition. But they found a large, robust and persistent effect of function or purpose on folk judgments of mereological composition with the folk judging that composition occurred when the plurality had a purpose. Also, after completing this manuscript, Josh Knobe brought to my attention recent work by Strominger and Nichols (2014) on the persistence of persons as well as a manuscript of his own investigating the role of moral valence in persistence judgments.
A total of 110 participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (Function: Lost, Preserved). After reading the case, participants rated the extent to which they thought the rock survived or was destroyed. After this they answered the same two comprehension question used above in Sect. 3.3 and were given the Gaia Belief Probe. The presentation of each of the items—the two comprehension questions and Gaia Belief Probe—was randomized. Ten people were excluded from the data analysis for missing one or more comprehension questions, leaving a total of 100 responses.
Overall, Gaia belief endorsement was fairly high, M = 4.8, SD = 1.96. The median was 5 and the mode was 7.
Only Condition and Gaia Belief predicted persistence judgments. There was no interaction between Condition and Gaia Belief, t(100) = \(-\)1.493, p = .139. Thus, the final model included only Condition and Gaia Belief. Both of these factors had a large-sized effect on persistence judgments, \(\hbox {R}^{2}=.317\). \(\hbox {R}^{2}\) indicates the amount of variance in the dependent variable explained by the linear model. Following Ellis (2010), values greater than or equal to 0.26 are large, greater than or equal to 0.13 but less than 0.26 are medium, and values greater than or equal to 0.02 but less than 0.13 are small.
Roughly, GES operates by considering the possible models available given the different variables. GES begins by assigning an information score to the null model (i.e., a disconnected graph). GES then considers various possible arrows (“edges”) between the different variables. It begins by adding the edge that yields the greatest improvement in the information score (if there is such an edge) and repeats the process until additional edges would not further improve the information score. GES then considers deletions which would yield the greatest improvement in the information score (if there is such an edge), repeating this procedure until no further deletions will improve the score. In all cases, the orientation of the edges is given by edge- orientation rules in Meek (1997). It has been shown by Chickering (2002) that, given enough data, GES will return the true causal model of the data. GES is often interpreted as returning the best fitting causal model, given the data. (For further details and some applications, see Chickering 2002; Rose et al. 2011; Rose and Nichols 2013; Rose and Nichols, forthcoming).
This model is a good fit of the data, \(\chi ^{2}\) (1) = 0.3083, p = 0.5815, BIC = \(-\)4.3013.
For more, see Alicke et al. (2011).
Put differently: we would not expect changes in whether an actual object preserves of loses its function to cause differences in the extent to which somebody endorsed the Gaia Belief.
I follow Kahane (2011) in associating undermining defeaters and debunking explanations: “Debunking arguments are arguments that show the causal origins of a belief to be an undermining defeater.” (p. 106). I would also point out that though my focus is on undermining defeaters, one who is attracted to a reliabilist epistemology could endorse a process debunking argument (see e.g., Nichols, forthcoming; Rose and Nichols, forthcoming).
Scientists were from chemistry, physics and geoscience departments and had held a PhD for an average of eight years. Humanities professionals were drawn from classics, English and history departments and had held a PhD for an average of seven years. Professionals from the sciences and humanities were drawn from Columbia, Boston University, Brown, Harvard, Yale and MIT.
Indeed, one might take low frequency of teleological endorsement among professionals in the unspeeded conditions to reflect mere noise. Though it’s not entirely clear what the threshold for mere noise is, one reasonable standard is to treat frequencies significantly below or non-significantly different from 20 % to reflect mere noise (see e.g., Murray et al. 2013). If this is right, then the tendency among the professionals to endorse teleological explanations on the basis of reflective judgments might be treated as reflecting nothing more than mere noise. But notice the same could not be said about their unreflective judgments.
Ratings were made of a 5-pt scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
In offering a targeted debunking explanation via an expertise defense for material object persistence, I am endorsing what Rose and Schaffer (2014) call the nuanced view: “the prospects for the expertise defense must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in empirically disciplined ways” (p. 32; also see Rose and Danks 2013).
I would like to thank an anonymous referee for raising this issue.
References
Alicke, M., Rose, D., & Bloom, D. (2011). Causation, norm violations and culpable control. Journal of Philosophy, 108, 670–696.
Allen, C. (2009). Teleological notions in biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/teleology-biology/.
Allen, C., & Bekoff, M. (1994). Function, natural design and animal behavior: Philosophical and ethnological considerations. In N. S. Thompson (Ed.), Perspectives in ethology, Vol. 11: Behavioral design (pp. 1–47). New York: Plenum Press.
Arico, A., Fiala, B., Goldberg, R., & Nichols, S. (2011). The folk psychology of consciousness. Mind & Language, 26, 327–352.
Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 547–609.
Bacon F. (1996). In: James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, Douglas Denon Heath (Eds) Collected works of Francis Bacon, vol. 4: Translations of the philosophical works. London: Routledge Press.
Benovsky, J. (2006). Persistence through Time, and Across Possible Worlds. New Brunswick: Ontos Verlag.
Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60, 1–29.
Bloom, P. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental Science, 10, 147–151.
Bloom, P., & Veres, C. (1999). The perceived intentionality of groups. Cognition, 71, B1–B9.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained. New York: Basic Books.
Burke, M. (1994). Preserving the principle of one object to a place: A novel account of the relations among objects, sorts, sortals and persistence conditions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 591–624.
Burke, M. (1997). Coinciding objects: Reply to Lowe and Denkel. Analysis, 57, 11–18.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1232–1254.
Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2008). Developmental continuity in teleo-functional explanation: Reasoning about nature among Romanian Romani adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 340–362.
Chickering, D. (2002). Optimal structure identification with greedy search. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 507–554.
Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 125–130.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765.
De Freitas, J., Tobia, K., Newman, G., & Knobe, J. (manuscript). The good ship Theseus: The effect of valence on object identity judgments.
Demastes, S., Settlage, J., & Good, R. (1995). Students’ conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 535–550.
Ellis, P. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A. N., Gram, W., Frazier, B. N., Tare, M., Thompson, S., et al. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 326–353.
German, T., & Johnson, S. (2002). Functions and the origin of the design stance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3, 279–300.
Goldberg, R., & Thompson-Schill, S. (2009). Developmental “Roots” in mature biological knowledge. Psychological Science, 20, 480–487.
Goldman, A. (2007). A program for “Naturalizing” metaphysics, with application to the ontology of events. The Monist, 90, 457–479.
Gonzales Galli, L., & Meinardi, E. (2011). The role of teleological thinking in learning the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution Education Outreach, 4, 145–152.
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156–175.
Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hawley, K. (2001). How things persist. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hawthorne, J. (2008). Three dimensionalism vs four dimensionalism. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–259.
Hinds, P. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 202–221.
Hirsch, E. (1982). The concept of identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirsch, E. (2002). Against revisionary ontology. Philosophical Topics, 30, 103–127.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79, 147–166.
Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Nous, 45, 103–125.
Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science and Education, 17, 27–47.
Keil, F. (1995). In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), The growth of causal understandings of natural kinds. Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 234–262). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelemen, D. (1999a). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241–272.
Kelemen, D. (1999b). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1440–1452.
Kelemen, D. (2004). Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science, 15, 295–301.
Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelemen, D., & DiYanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 3–31.
Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138–143.
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1074–1083.
Korman, D. (2009). Eliminativism and the challenge from folk belief. Noûs, 43, 242–264.
Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lombrozo, T., Kelemen, D., & Zaitchik, D. (2007). Inferring design: Evidence for a preference for teleological explanation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Psychological Science, 18, 999–1006.
Lowe, E. J. (1995). Coinciding objects. In defense of the ‘standard account’. Analysis, 55, 171–178.
Ludwig, K. (2007). The epistemology of thought experiments: First person versus third person approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, 128–159.
Mayr, E. (1998). The multiple meanings of teleological. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 20, 35–40.
Meek, C. (1997). Graphical models: Selecting causal and statistical models. PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
Merricks, T. (1994). Endurance and indiscernibility. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 165–184.
Millikan, R. G. (1989). In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science, 56, 288–302.
Moore, R., Mitchell, G., Bally, R., Inglis, M., Day, J., & Jacobs, D. (2002). Undergraduates understanding of evolution: Ascription of agency as a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 65–71.
Murray, D., Sytsma, J., & Livengood, J. (2013). God knows (but does god believe). Philosophical Studies, 166, 83–107.
Nichols, S. (forthcoming). Process debunking and ethics. Ethics.
Parsons, J. (2000). Must a four dimensionalist believe in temporal parts? The Monist, 83, 399–418.
Paul, L. A. (2002). Logical parts. Nous, 36, 578–596.
Paul, L. A. (2010). A new role for experimental work in metaphysics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 461–476.
Paul, L. A. (2012). Metaphysics as modeling: The handmaiden’s Tale. Philosophical Studies, 160, 1–29.
Piaget, J. (1929/1960). The child’s conception of the world (J. Tomlinson & A. Tomlinson, Trans.). Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. (Original work published 1929).
Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11, 481–518.
Richards, D. D., & Siegler, R. S. (1986). Children’s understanding of the attributes of life. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 1–22.
Rose, D., & Danks, D. (2013). In defense of a broad conception of experimental philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 44, 512–534.
Rose, D., Livengood, J., Sytsma, J., & Machery, E. (2011). Deep trouble for the deep self. Philosophical Psychology, 25, 629–646.
Rose, D., & Nichols, S. (2013). The lesson of bypassing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4, 599–619.
Rose, D., & Nichols, S. (forthcoming). From punishment to moral objectivity. In Cuneo, T & Loeb, D (Eds.), The empirical dimensions of metaethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, D., & Schaffer, J. (2014). Folk mereology is teleological. Unpublished Manuscript, New Brunswick: Rutgers University.
Sidelle, A. (2002). Is there a true metaphysics of material objects? Philosophical Issues, 12, 118–145.
Sider, T. (2001). Four dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strominger, N., & Nichols, S. (2014). The essential moral self. Cognition, 131, 159–171.
Thomson, J. (1983). Parthood and identity across time. Journal of Philosophy, 80, 201–220.
Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell.
Wiggins, D. (1968). On being in the same place at the same time. Philosophical Review, 77, 90–95.
Wiggins, D. (1980). Sameness and substance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Williamson, T. (2011). Philosophical expertise and the burden of proof. Metaphilosophy, 42, 215–229.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank David Danks, Josh Knobe, Shaun Nichols, Laurie Paul, Jonathan Schaffer, Stephen Stich, John Turri and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Study 1 (Section 3.1: Rowboat, organism and rock cases)
1.1.1 Rowboat cases
(a) No function John is an accomplished woodworker and sailor, whose lifelong hobby is building rowboats by hand. He built his first rowboat—which he named “Drifter”—30 years ago. Over the years there has been wear and tear, and it turns out that every single one of the original planks has needed to be replaced.
John—never one to throw anything out—has stored all of the original planks in his shed over the years. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough old planks in his shed for a whole rowboat—took out his old plans for “Drifter” and assembled these planks exactly according to his old plans. John now has two rowboats of the same design: the rowboat originally built 30 years ago that has none of its original parts, and the rowboat just built one month ago with all of the original parts from “Drifter”.
John has promised two of his friends—Suzy and Andy—that they can borrow Drifter for an outing. But Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rowboats is actually Drifter. Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Drifter originally had. But Suzy thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter, since, even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of normal maintenance.
(b) Replacement preserves function John is an accomplished woodworker and sailor, whose lifelong hobby is building rowboats by hand. He built his first rowboat—which he named “Drifter”—30 years ago. It was an excellent rowboat: it was very stable, never let water in and sailed smoothly. Over the years there has been wear and tear, and so John, to keep it in perfect working order, has replaced various parts. And, it turns out that, over the years, every single one of the original planks has needed to be replaced.
John—never one to throw anything out—stored all of the original planks in his shed over the years. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough old planks in his shed for a whole rowboat—took out his old plans for “Drifter” and assembled these planks exactly according to his old plans. This rowboat, however, worked terribly: it was very rickety, always let water in and sank after just a few minutes in the water. So, John now has two rowboats of the same design: the rowboat originally built 30 years ago that has none of its original parts and works perfectly as a rowboat, and the rowboat just built one month ago with all of the original parts from “Drifter”, which works terribly as a rowboat.
John has promised two of his friends—Suzy and Andy—that they can borrow Drifter for an outing. But Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rowboats is actually Drifter. Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter, since, even though it works terribly as a rowboat, it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Drifter originally had. But Suzy disagrees. She thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter, since even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of the normal maintenance required to keep the rowboat in perfect working order.
(c) Original parts preserves function John is an accomplished woodworker and sailor, whose lifelong hobby is building rowboats by hand. He built his first rowboat—which he named “Drifter”—30 years ago. It was an excellent rowboat: it was very stable, never let water in and sailed smoothly. But John was always thinking of ways to try and make the rowboat even better. And over the years, every single one of the original planks ended up being replaced. The end result, however, was not an improved rowboat. Rather the rowboat ended up being terrible: it was very rickety, always let water in and sank after just a few minutes in the water.
Fortunately, John—never one to throw anything out—stored all of the original planks in his shed over the years. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough old planks in his shed for a whole rowboat—took out his old plans for “Drifter” and assembled these planks exactly according to his old plans. This rowboat worked perfectly: it was very stable, never let in water and sailed smoothly across the water. So, John now has two rowboats of the same design: the rowboat originally built 30 years ago that has none of its original parts and works terribly as a rowboat, and the rowboat just built one month ago with all of the original parts from “Drifter”, which works perfectly as a rowboat.
John has promised two of his friends—Suzy and Andy—that they can borrow Drifter for an outing. But Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rowboats is actually Drifter. Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Drifter originally had and works perfectly. But Suzy thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter, since, even though it has all new parts and is a terrible rowboat, this was just the result of John’s attempt to improve it.
(d) Comprehension checks
-
(1)
The rowboat built a month ago is made from all the original parts of “Drifter”. (Yes/No)
-
(2)
The rowboat built 30 years ago has all new parts. (Yes/No)
-
(3)
Suzy thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter. (Yes/No)
-
(4)
Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter. (Yes/No)
1.1.2 Organism cases
(a) No function John is an accomplished biochemist who has devoted his life to studying organisms. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a new organism. He named the organism “Gollywag” and immediately logged the exact details of the organism. Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the organism. Each time he conducts an experiment on the organism, he cuts off a part of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of part from another organism of the same type. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the organism has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each part of the organism from the original organism. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough parts of the organism for a whole organism—took out his logbook and assembled the parts exactly according to his notes. John now has two organisms of exactly the same design: the organism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced and the organism assembled just a month ago with all of the original parts from “Gollywag”.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Gollywag”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two organisms is actually Gollywag. Andy thinks that the organism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Gollywag originally had. But Suzy thinks that the organism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag, since, even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(b) Replacement preserves function John is an accomplished biochemist who has devoted his life to studying organisms. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a new organism. He named the organism “Gollywag” and immediately logged the exact details of the organism.
John has always suffered from Eczema, a condition where, despite the use of lotions and so forth, his hands are itchy, dry and red. But, after first handling the organism, he noticed that his Eczema disappeared: his hands were no longer itchy, dry or red. So, he decided to start conducting experiments on the organism.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the organism. Each time he conducts an experiment on the organism, he cuts off a part of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of part from another organism of the same type. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single part of the organism has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each part from the original organism. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough parts of the organism for a whole organism—took out his logbook and assembled the parts exactly according to his notes. When John handled this organism, however, he noticed his that his Eczema is severely aggravated: his hands were severely itchy, dry and red. So, John now has two organisms of exactly the same design: the organism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced which makes his Eczema completely disappear and the organism assembled just a month ago with all of the original parts from “Gollywag”, which severely aggravates his Eczema.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Gollywag”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two organisms is actually Gollywag. Andy thinks that the organism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag, since even though it severely aggravated John’s Eczema, it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Gollywag originally had. But Suzy thinks that the organism discovered thirty years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag, since it makes John’s Eczema disappear and even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(c) Original parts preserves function John is an accomplished biochemist who has devoted his life to studying organisms. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a new organism. He named the organism “Gollywag” and immediately logged the exact details of the organism.
John has always suffered from Eczema, a condition where, despite the use of lotions and so forth, his hands are itchy, dry and red. But, after first handling the organism, he noticed that his Eczema disappeared: his hands were no longer itchy, dry or red. So, he decided to start conducting experiments on the organism.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the organism. Each time he conducts an experiment on the organism, he cuts off a part of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of part from another organism of the same type. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single part of the organism has been replaced. In the end, however, John noticed that when he handled the organism that, instead of relieving his itchy, dry, red skin that it was actually severely aggravated: his hands were dryer, itchier and redder than they had ever been.
Fortunately, after testing, John always stores each part from the original organism. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough parts of the organism for a whole organism—took out his logbook and assembled the parts exactly according to his notes. When John handled this organism, he noticed his Eczema completely disappeared: his hands were no longer itchy, dry or red. So, John now has two organisms of exactly the same design: the organism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced which severely aggravates his Eczema and the organism assembled just a month ago with all of the original parts from “Gollywag”, which makes his Eczema completely disappear.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Gollywag”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two organisms is actually Gollywag. Andy thinks that the organism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Gollywag originally had and makes John’s Eczema completely disappear. But Suzy thinks that the organism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag, since, even though it has all new parts and severely aggravates John’s Eczema, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(d) Comprehension checks
-
(1)
The organism assembled a month ago is made from all the original parts of “Gollywag”.(Yes/No)
-
(2)
The organism discovered 30 years ago has all new parts. (Yes/No)
-
(3)
Suzy thinks that the organism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag. (Yes/No)
-
(4)
Andy thinks that the organism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag. (Yes/No)
1.1.3 Rock cases
(a) No function John is an accomplished geochemist who has devoted his life to studying rocks. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a rock, made out of an unknown mineral. He named the rock “Zenyte” and immediately logged the exact details of the rock. Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the rock. Each time he conducts an experiment on the rock, he breaks off a piece of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of mineral. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the rock has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each piece of mineral from the original rock. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough pieces of the mineral for a whole rock—took out his logbook and assembled the minerals exactly according to his notes. John now has two rocks of exactly the same design: the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its minerals completely replaced and the rock assembled just a month ago with all of the original minerals from “Zenyte”.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Zenyte”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rocks is actually Zenyte. Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Zenyte originally had. But Suzy thinks that the rock discovered thirty years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte, since, even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(b) Original parts preserves function John is an accomplished geochemist who has devoted his life to studying rocks. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a rock, made out of an unknown mineral. He named the rock “Zenyte” and immediately logged the exact details of the rock.
John has always suffered from Eczema, a condition where, despite the use of lotions and so forth, his hands are itchy, dry and red. But, after first handling the rock, he noticed that his Eczema disappeared: his hands were no longer itchy, dry or red. So, he decided to start conducting experiments on the rock.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the rock. Each time he conducts an experiment on the rock, he breaks off a piece of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of mineral. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the rock has been replaced. In the end, however, John noticed that when he handled the rock that, instead of relieving his itchy, dry, red skin that it was actually severely aggravated: his hands were dryer, itchier and redder than they had ever been.
Fortunately, after testing, John always stores each piece of mineral from the original rock. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough pieces of the mineral for a whole rock—took out his logbook and assembled the minerals exactly according to his notes. When John handled this rock, he noticed his Eczema completely disappeared: his hands were no longer itchy, dry or red. So, John now has two rocks of exactly the same design: the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its minerals completely replaced which severely aggravates his Eczema and the rock assembled just a month ago with all of the original minerals from “Zenyte”, which makes his Eczema completely disappear.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Zenyte”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rocks is actually Zenyte. Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Zenyte originally had and makes John’s Eczema completely disappear. But Suzy thinks that the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte, since, even though it has all new parts and severely aggravates John’s Eczema, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(c) Replacement preserves function John is an accomplished geochemist who has devoted his life to studying rocks. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a rock, made out of an unknown mineral. He named the rock “Zenyte” and immediately logged the exact details of the rock.
John has always suffered from Eczema, a condition where, despite the use of lotions and so forth, his hands are itchy, dry and red. But, after first handling the rock, he noticed that his Eczema disappeared: his hands were no longer itchy, dry or red. So, he decided to start conducting experiments on the rock.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the rock. Each time he conducts an experiment on the rock, he breaks off a piece of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of mineral. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the rock has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each piece of mineral from the original rock. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough pieces of the mineral for a whole rock—took out his logbook and assembled the minerals exactly according to his notes. When John handled this rock, however, he noticed his that his Eczema is severely aggravated: his hands were severely itchy, dry and red. So, John now has two rocks of exactly the same design: the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its minerals completely replaced which makes his Eczema completely disappear and the rock assembled just a month ago with all of the original minerals from “Zenyte”, which severely aggravates his Eczema.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Zenyte”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rocks is actually Zenyte. Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte, since even though it severely aggravated John’s Eczema, it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Zenyte originally had. But Suzy thinks that the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte, since it makes John’s Eczema disappear and even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(d) Comprehension checks
-
(1)
The rock assembled a month ago is made from all the original parts of “Zenyte”.(Yes/No)
-
(2)
The rock discovered 30 years ago has all new parts. (Yes/No)
-
(3)
Suzy thinks that the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte. (Yes/No)
-
(4)
Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte. (Yes/No)
1.2 Study 2 (Section 3.2: Rowboat, organism and rock cases modified)
1.2.1 Rowboat cases
(a) No function John is an accomplished woodworker and sailor, whose lifelong hobby is building rowboats by hand. He built his first rowboat—which he named “Drifter”— 30 years ago. Over the years there has been wear and tear, and it turns out that every single one of the original planks has needed to be replaced.
John—never one to throw anything out—has stored all of the original planks in his shed over the years. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough old planks in his shed for a whole rowboat—took out his old plans for “Drifter” and assembled these planks exactly according to his old plans. John now has two rowboats of the same design: the rowboat originally built 30 years ago that has none of its original parts, and the rowboat just built one month ago with all of the original parts from “Drifter”.
Two of John’s friends—Suzy and Andy—are taking a painting class at the local university. Both of them decide that they would like to paint a picture of Drifter. They call John and he tells them that while he is an extremely private individual who never lets anyone mess with his stuff, he will make one exception for them. But he tells them that they can only paint Drifter and nothing else. He goes on to tell them though that he is heading out for vacation and will have no phone or internet access while he is away. But he tells them that they are free to stop by while he is away and paint Drifter.
So, one afternoon, Suzy and Andy head over to John’s place so that they can begin their painting. But Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rowboats is actually Drifter. Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Drifter originally had. But Suzy thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter, since, even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of normal maintenance.
(b) Replacement preserves function John is an accomplished woodworker and sailor, whose lifelong hobby is building rowboats by hand. He built his first rowboat—which he named “Drifter”—30 years ago. It was an excellent rowboat: it was very stable, never let water in and sailed smoothly. Over the years there has been wear and tear, and so John, to keep it in perfect working order, has replaced various parts. And, it turns out that, over the years, every single one of the original planks has needed to be replaced.
John—never one to throw anything out—stored all of the original planks in his shed over the years. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough old planks in his shed for a whole rowboat—took out his old plans for “Drifter” and assembled these planks exactly according to his old plans. This rowboat, however, worked terribly: it was very rickety, always let water in and sank after just a few minutes in the water. So, John now has two rowboats of the same design: the rowboat originally built 30 years ago that has none of its original parts and works perfectly as a rowboat, and the rowboat just built one month ago with all of the original parts from “Drifter”, which works terribly as a rowboat.
Two of John’s friends—Suzy and Andy—are taking a painting class at the local university. Both of them decide that they would like to paint a picture of Drifter. They call John and he tells them that while he is an extremely private individual who never lets anyone mess with his stuff, he will make one exception for them. But he tells them that they can only paint Drifter and nothing else. He goes on to tell them though that he is heading out for vacation and will have no phone or internet access while he is away. But he tells them that they are free to stop by while he is away and paint Drifter.
So, one afternoon, Suzy and Andy head over to John’s place so that they can begin their painting. But Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rowboats is actually Drifter. Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter, since, even though it works terribly as a rowboat, it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Drifter originally had. But Suzy disagrees. She thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter, since even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of the normal maintenance required to keep the rowboat in perfect working order.
(c) Original parts preserves function John is an accomplished woodworker and sailor, whose lifelong hobby is building rowboats by hand. He built his first rowboat—which he named “Drifter”—30 years ago. It was an excellent rowboat: it was very stable, never let water in and sailed smoothly. But John was always thinking of ways to try and make the rowboat even better. And over the years, every single one of the original planks ended up being replaced. The end result, however, was not an improved rowboat. Rather the rowboat ended up being terrible: it was very rickety, always let water in and sank after just a few minutes in the water.
Fortunately, John—never one to throw anything out—stored all of the original planks in his shed over the years. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough old planks in his shed for a whole rowboat—took out his old plans for “Drifter” and assembled these planks exactly according to his old plans. This rowboat worked perfectly: it was very stable, never let in water and sailed smoothly across the water. So, John now has two rowboats of the same design: the rowboat originally built 30 years ago that has none of its original parts and works terribly as a rowboat, and the rowboat just built one month ago with all of the original parts from “Drifter”, which works perfectly as a rowboat.
Two of John’s friends—Suzy and Andy—are taking a painting class at the local university. Both of them decide that they would like to paint a picture of Drifter. They call John and he tells them that while he is an extremely private individual who never lets anyone mess with his stuff, he will make one exception for them. But he tells them that they can only paint Drifter and nothing else. He goes on to tell them though that he is heading out for vacation and will have no phone or internet access while he is away. But he tells them that they are free to stop by while he is away and paint Drifter.
So, one afternoon, Suzy and Andy head over to John’s place so that they can begin their painting. But Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rowboats is actually Drifter. Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Drifter originally had and works perfectly. But Suzy thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter, since, even though it has all new parts and is a terrible rowboat, this was just the result of John’s attempt to improve it.
(d) Comprehension checks
-
(1)
The rowboat built a month ago is made from all the original parts of “Drifter”. (Yes/No)
-
(2)
The rowboat built 30 years ago has all new parts. (Yes/No)
-
(3)
Suzy thinks that the rowboat built 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Drifter. (Yes/No)
-
(4)
Andy thinks that the rowboat just built a month ago is actually Drifter. (Yes/No)
1.2.2 Organism cases
(a) No function John is an accomplished microbiologist who has devoted his life to studying microorganisms. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a new microorganism. He named the microorganism “Gollywag” and immediately logged the exact details of the microorganism. Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the microorganism. Each time he conducts an experiment on the microorganism, he cuts off a part of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of part from another microorganism of the same type. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the microorganism has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each part of the microorganism from the original microorganism. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough parts of the microorganism for a whole microorganism—took out his logbook and assembled the parts exactly according to his notes. John now has two microorganisms of exactly the same design: the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced and the microorganism assembled just a month ago with all of the original parts from “Gollywag”.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Gollywag”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two microorganisms is actually Gollywag. Andy thinks that the microorganism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Gollywag originally had. But Suzy thinks that the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag, since, even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(b) Replacement preserves function John is an accomplished microbiologist who has devoted his life to studying microorganisms. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a new microorganism. He named the microorganism “Gollywag” and immediately logged the exact details of the microorganism.
When John began examining the microorganism, he noticed it emitted a unique sequence of chemicals. Curious as to why the microorganism emitted this particular sequence of chemicals, John showed the microorganism to one of his friends, Frank, who is a biochemist. Frank kept the microorganism for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the microorganism is very delicate and can only survive if its body temperature stays between 60\(^\circ \) and 65\(^\circ \). Frank goes on to tell John that the way it maintains its body temperature is by having other microorganisms come into contact with it. And the only way to get the other microorganisms in contact with it is by emitting this unique sequence of chemicals. So, Frank tells John that the unique sequence of chemicals is actually for signaling to the others that they need to come into contact with it to help maintain its body temperature.
But John, being a microbiologist, isn’t interested in the chemicals emitted by the microorganism. Rather he is interested in investigating and studying the various parts of the microorganism “Gollywag”. So, he starts conducting experiments on the microorganism.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the microorganism. Each time he conducts an experiment on the microorganism, he cuts off a part of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of part from another microorganism of the same type. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single part of the microorganism has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each part from the original microorganism. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough parts of the microorganism for a whole microorganism—took out his logbook and assembled the parts exactly according to his notes. When John handled this microorganism, however, he noticed his that it no longer emitted the unique sequence of chemicals. So, John now has two microorganisms of exactly the same design: the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced and which emits the unique sequence of chemicals and the microorganism assembled just a month ago with all of the original parts from “Gollywag”, which no longer emits the unique sequence of chemicals.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Gollywag”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two microorganisms is actually Gollywag. Andy thinks that the microorganism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag, since even though it does not emit the unique sequence of chemicals, it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Gollywag originally had. But Suzy thinks that the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag, since it emits the unique sequence of chemicals, and even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(c) Original parts preserves function John is an accomplished microbiologist who has devoted his life to studying microorganisms. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a new microorganism. He named the microorganism “Gollywag” and immediately logged the exact details of the microorganism.
When John began examining the microorganism, he noticed it emitted a unique sequence of chemicals. Curious as to why the microorganism emitted this particular sequence of chemicals, John showed the microorganism to one of his friends, Frank, who is a biochemist. Frank kept the microorganism for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the microorganism is very delicate and can only survive if its body temperature stays between 60\(^\circ \) and 65\(^\circ \). Frank goes on to tell John that the way it maintains its body temperature is by having other microorganisms come into contact with it. And the only way to get the other microorganisms in contact with it is by emitting this unique sequence of chemicals. So, Frank tells John that the unique sequence of chemicals is actually for signaling to the others that they need to come into contact with it to help maintain its body temperature.
But John, being a microbiologist, isn’t interested in the chemicals emitted by the microorganism. Rather he is interested in investigating and studying the various parts of the microorganism “Gollywag”. So, he starts conducting experiments on the microorganism.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the microorganism. Each time he conducts an experiment on the microorganism, he cuts off a part of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of part from another microorganism of the same type. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single part of the microorganism has been replaced. In the end, however, John noticed that when he examined the microorganism it no longer emitted the unique sequence of chemicals.
After testing though, John always stores each part from the original microorganism. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough parts of the microorganism for a whole microorganism—took out his logbook and assembled the parts exactly according to his notes. When John examined this microrganism, he noticed that it emitted the unique sequence of chemicals. So, John now has two microorganisms of exactly the same design: the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced which no longer emits the unique sequence of chemicals and the microorganism assembled just a month ago with all of the original parts from “Gollywag”, which emits the unique sequence of chemicals.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Gollywag”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two microorganisms is actually Gollywag. Andy thinks that the microorganism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Gollywag originally had and emits the unique sequence of chemicals. But Suzy thinks that the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag, since, even though it has all new parts and no longer emits the unique sequence of chemicals, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(d) Comprehension checks
-
(1)
The microorganism assembled a month ago is made from all the original parts of “Gollywag”.(Yes/No)
-
(2)
The microorganism discovered 30 years ago has all new parts. (Yes/No)
-
(3)
Suzy thinks that the microorganism discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Gollywag. (Yes/No)
-
(4)
Andy thinks that the microorganism assembled just a month ago is actually Gollywag. (Yes/No)
1.2.3 Rock cases
(a) No function John is an accomplished geochemist who has devoted his life to studying rocks. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a rock, made out of an unknown mineral. And interestingly, due to this mineral, the rock took on a distinctive, hollowed-out seashell shape. He named the rock “Zenyte” and immediately logged the exact details of the rock.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the rock. Each time he conducts an experiment on the rock, he breaks off a piece of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of mineral. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the rock has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each piece of mineral from the original rock. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough pieces of the mineral for a whole rock—took out his logbook and assembled the minerals exactly according to his notes. John now has two rocks of exactly the same design: the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its minerals completely replaced and the rock assembled just a month ago with all of the original minerals from “Zenyte”.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Zenyte”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rocks is actually Zenyte. Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Zenyte originally had. But Suzy thinks that the rock discovered thirty years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte, since, even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(b) Replacement preserves function John is an accomplished geochemist who has devoted his life to studying rocks. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a rock, made out of an unknown mineral. And interestingly, due to this mineral, the rock took on a distinctive, hollowed-out seashell shape. He named the rock “Zenyte” and immediately logged the exact details of the rock.
When John began examining the rock, he noticed that the rock housed an interesting species of worm. Since he had never seen this particular type of worm before, John showed the rock to one of his friends, Frank, who is a biologist. Frank kept the rock for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the worms living in the rock are actually very delicate. Indeed, Frank told John that the rock actually creates the perfect conditions for the worms to breed and flourish in and that there is no other environment in which the worms could survive. So, Frank tells John that the rock is actually for providing a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
But John, being a geochemist, isn’t interested in the worms. Rather he is interested in investigating and studying the unknown mineral that makes up “Zenyte”. So, he starts conducting experiments on the rock.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the rock. Each time he conducts an experiment on the rock, he breaks off a piece of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of mineral. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the rock has been replaced.
After testing though, John always stores each piece of mineral from the original rock. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough pieces of the mineral for a whole rock—took out his logbook and assembled the minerals exactly according to his notes. When John examined this rock, however, he noticed that all the worms died. So, John now has two rocks of exactly the same design: the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its minerals completely replaced which creates a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms to reproduce and flourish and the rock assembled just a month ago with all of the original minerals from “Zenyte”, which kills all the worms.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Zenyte”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rocks is actually Zenyte. Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte, since even though it kills the worms, it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Zenyte originally had. But Suzy thinks that the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte, since it creates a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms to reproduce and flourish and even though it has all new parts, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(c) Original parts preserves function John is an accomplished geochemist who has devoted his life to studying rocks. When he first began his career 30 years ago, he discovered a rock, made out of an unknown mineral. And interestingly, due to this mineral, the rock took on a distinctive, hollowed-out seashell shape. He named the rock “Zenyte” and immediately logged the exact details of the rock.
When John began examining the rock, he noticed that the rock housed an interesting species of worm. Since he had never seen this particular type of worm before, John showed the rock to one of his friends, Frank, who is a biologist. Frank kept the rock for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the worms living in the rock are actually very delicate. Indeed, Frank told John that the rock actually creates the perfect conditions for the worms to breed and flourish in and that there is no other environment in which the worms could survive. So, Frank tells John that the rock is actually for providing a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
But John, being a geochemist, isn’t interested in the worms. Rather he is interested in investigating and studying the unknown mineral that makes up “Zenyte”. So, he starts conducting experiments on the rock.
Over the years, John has conducted many experiments on the rock. Each time he conducts an experiment on the rock, he breaks off a piece of it, which he uses for testing, and replaces it with the same type of mineral. Indeed, John has conducted so many experiments over the years that every single piece of the rock has been replaced. In the end, however, John noticed that the worms could no longer survive in the rock.
After testing though, John always stores each piece of mineral from the original rock. Last month John—realizing that he had accumulated enough pieces of the mineral for a whole rock—took out his logbook and assembled the minerals exactly according to his notes. When John examined this rock, he noticed that the worms reproduced and flourished. So, John now has two rocks of exactly the same design: the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its minerals completely replaced which kills all the worms and the rock assembled just a month ago with all of the original minerals from “Zenyte”, which creates a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms to reproduce and flourish.
John has just hired two interns—Andy and Suzy—to work in his lab. He tells them that their first assignment will be to perform a series of experiments on “Zenyte”. But, Suzy and Andy aren’t sure which of the two rocks is actually Zenyte. Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte, since it has exactly the same parts, arranged in exactly the same way as Zenyte originally had and creates a hospitable environment for the worms to reproduce and flourish. But Suzy thinks that the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte, since, even though it has all new parts and kills all the worms, this was just the result of years of experimentation.
(d) Comprehension checks
-
(1)
The rock assembled a month ago is made from all the original parts of “Zenyte”.(Yes/No)
-
(2)
The rock discovered 30 years ago has all new parts. (Yes/No)
-
(3)
Suzy thinks that the rock discovered 30 years ago with all of its parts completely replaced is actually Zenyte. (Yes/No)
-
(4)
Andy thinks that the rock assembled just a month ago is actually Zenyte. (Yes/No)
1.3 Study 3 (Section 3.3: Rock smashed into three pieces)
1.3.1 Loss of function
John is out hiking and he spots something glowing in a strange way by the side of the trail. It turns out to be a rock, glowing because it serves as a home to a special sort of microorganism. John takes the thing home to study it further. But it begins to fade as the microorganisms it hosts start dying. John realizes that the microorganisms are feeding on minerals in the rock but can’t access the minerals in the interior of the rock. So he tries an experiment: he hits the rock with a hammer, breaking it into three pieces. But the experiment does not work: the microorganisms all begin quickly dying and it stops glowing, fading completely to black.
1.3.2 And preservation of function:
John is out hiking and he spots something glowing in a strange way by the side of the trail. It turns out to be a rock, glowing because it serves as a home to a special sort of microorganism. John takes the thing home to study it further. But it begins to fade as the microorganisms it hosts start dying. John realizes that the microorganisms are feeding on minerals in the rock but can’t access the minerals in the interior of the rock. So he tries an experiment: he hits the rock with a hammer, breaking it into three pieces. The experiment works: the microorganisms are then able to access all the minerals and so it resumes glowing even brighter than before.
1.4 Study 4 (Section 3.4: Denting and pulverizing)
1.4.1 Denting
John is out hiking and he spots something glowing in a strange way by the side of the trail. It turns out to be a rock, glowing because it serves as a home to a special sort of microorganism. John takes the thing home to study it further. But it begins to fade as the microorganisms it hosts start dying. John realizes that the microorganisms are feeding on minerals in the rock but can’t access the minerals in the interior of the rock. So he tries an experiment: he hits the rock with a hammer. As a result the rock is dented. But the experiment does not work: the microorganisms all begin quickly dying and it stops glowing, fading completely to black.
1.4.2 Denting control
John is out hiking and he spots something by the side of the trail. It turns out to be a rock. He takes the thing home. Later that evening, John gets bored and he hits it with a hammer. As a result, the rock is dented.
1.4.3 Pulverizing
John is out hiking and he spots something glowing in a strange way by the side of the trail. It turns out to be a rock, glowing because it serves as a home to a special sort of microorganism. John takes the thing home to study it further. But it begins to fade as the microorganisms it hosts start dying. John realizes that the microorganisms are feeding on minerals in the rock but can’t access the minerals in the interior of the rock. So he tries an experiment: he smashes the rock into pieces with a hammer. The experiment works: the microorganisms are then able to access all the minerals and so it resumes glowing even brighter than before.
1.4.4 Pulverizing control
John is out hiking and he spots something by the side of the trail. It turns out to be a rock. He takes the thing home. Later that evening John gets bored and he smashes it into pieces with a hammer.
1.5 Study 5 (Section 3.5: Denting and pulverizing with loss and preservation of function)
1.5.1 Denting, loss of function
John is a geologist. Recently, he went on an expedition to Antarctica in search of new kinds of rocks. While in Antarctica, John discovered a very strange rock, unlike any rock he had ever seen, and noticed what appeared to be tiny worms in the crevices of the rock. He named the rock “Zenyte”.
John took Zenyte back to Arizona and gave it to a biologist, Frank. Frank kept Zenyte for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the worms living in Zenyte are actually very delicate. Indeed, Frank told John that Zenyte actually transmits an incredibly rare combination of chemicals and that this combination of chemicals creates the perfect conditions for the worms to breed and flourish. Frank tells John that there is no other environment in which the worms could survive and that Zenyte is actually for providing a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
Frank kept Zenyte so that he could continue studying the worms. But as time went on, Frank noticed that Zenyte was reacting negatively to the lab environment and so was getting denser. As Zenyte became denser the combination of chemicals transmitted by it were slowly decreasing and the worms were beginning to die.
In an attempt to preserve Zentye and prevent the worms from dying, Frank decided that he would hit the rock with a hammer. As a result, the rock is dented and, unfortunately, now the combination of chemicals is not transmitted at all and the worms are all quickly dying.
Later that day, John wants to examine Zenyte and so goes to Frank’s lab. John asks Frank if he can examine Zenyte and Frank takes him over to it. When John looks at it, he says “this is not Zenyte, you’ve completely destroyed it and it no longer performs the functions that are essential to it: it no longer transmits the combination of chemicals and all the worms it once housed are dead”. But Frank disagrees, saying that though it looks different it is still Zenyte.
1.5.2 Denting, preservation of function
John is a geologist. Recently, he went on an expedition to Antarctica in search of new kinds of rocks. While in Antarctica, John discovered a very strange rock, unlike any rock he had ever seen, and noticed what appeared to be tiny worms in the crevices of the rock. He named the rock “Zenyte”.
John took Zenyte back to Arizona and gave it to a biologist, Frank. Frank kept Zenyte for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the worms living in Zenyte are actually very delicate. Indeed, Frank told John that Zenyte actually transmits an incredibly rare combination of chemicals and that this combination of chemicals creates the perfect conditions for the worms to breed and flourish. Frank tells John that there is no other environment in which the worms could survive and that Zenyte is actually for providing a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
Frank kept Zenyte so that he could continue studying the worms. But as time went on, Frank noticed that Zenyte was reacting negatively to the lab environment and so was getting denser. As Zenyte became denser the combination of chemicals transmitted by it were slowly decreasing and the worms were beginning to die.
In an attempt to preserve Zentye and prevent the worms from dying, Frank decided that he would hit the rock with a hammer. As a result, the rock is dented and now, the combination of chemicals is being perfectly transmitted—just like they were before Zenyte became dense—and the worms are continuing to flourish.
Later that day, John wants to examine Zenyte and so goes to Frank’s lab. John asks Frank if he can examine Zenyte and Frank takes him over to it. When John looks at it, he says “this is not Zenyte, you’ve completely destroyed it”. But Frank disagrees, saying that it is still Zenyte. He tells John that though it looks different, it performs all of the functions that are essential to it: it still transmits the rare combination of chemicals and still creates a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
1.5.3 Pulverizing, loss of function
John is a geologist. Recently, he went on an expedition to Antarctica in search of new kinds of rocks. While in Antarctica, John discovered a very strange rock, unlike any rock he had ever seen, and noticed what appeared to be tiny worms in the crevices of the rock. He named the rock “Zenyte”.
John took Zenyte back to Arizona and gave it to a biologist, Frank. Frank kept Zenyte for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the worms living in Zenyte are actually very delicate. Indeed, Frank told John that Zenyte actually transmits an incredibly rare combination of chemicals and that this combination of chemicals creates the perfect conditions for the worms to breed and flourish. Frank tells John that there is no other environment in which the worms could survive and that Zenyte is actually for providing a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
Frank kept Zenyte so that he could continue studying the worms. But as time went on, Frank noticed that Zenyte was reacting negatively to the lab environment and so was getting denser. As Zenyte became denser the combination of chemicals transmitted by it were slowly decreasing and the worms were beginning to die.
In an attempt to preserve Zentye and prevent the worms from dying, Frank decided that he would carefully break up the rock. He breaks Zenyte into more fine grained pieces until the pieces are so small—much like dust particles—that he cannot break them down any further. Unfortunately, now the combination of chemicals is not transmitted at all and the worms are all quickly dying.
Later that day, John wants to examine Zenyte and so goes to Frank’s lab. John asks Frank if he can examine Zenyte and Frank takes him over to it. When John looks at it, he says “this is not Zenyte, you’ve completely destroyed it and it no longer performs the functions that are essential to it: it no longer transmits the combination of chemicals and all the worms it once housed are dead”. But Frank disagrees, saying that though it looks different it is still Zenyte.
1.5.4 Pulverizing, preservation of function
John is a geologist. Recently, he went on an expedition to Antarctica in search of new kinds of rocks. While in Antarctica, John discovered a very strange rock, unlike any rock he had ever seen, and noticed what appeared to be tiny worms in the crevices of the rock. He named the rock “Zenyte”.
John took Zenyte back to Arizona and gave it to a biologist, Frank. Frank kept Zenyte for several days and after careful examination he reported back to John. Frank told John that the worms living in Zenyte are actually very delicate. Indeed, Frank told John that Zenyte actually transmits an incredibly rare combination of chemicals and that this combination of chemicals creates the perfect conditions for the worms to breed and flourish. Frank tells John that there is no other environment in which the worms could survive and that Zenyte is actually for providing a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
Frank kept Zenyte so that he could continue studying the worms. But as time went on, Frank noticed that Zenyte was reacting negatively to the lab environment and so was getting denser. As Zenyte became denser the combination of chemicals transmitted by it were slowly decreasing and the worms were beginning to die.
In an attempt to preserve Zentye and prevent the worms from dying, Frank decided that he would carefully break up the rock. As he breaks Zenyte into more fine grained pieces he notices that the chemical transmission is slowly being restored to normal levels. So, he continues until the pieces are so small—much like dust particles—that he cannot break them down any further. Now, the combination of chemicals is being perfectly transmitted—just like they were before Zenyte became dense—and the worms are continuing to flourish.
Later that day, John wants to examine Zenyte and so goes to Frank’s lab. John asks Frank if he can examine Zenyte and Frank takes him over to it. When John looks at it, he says “this is not Zenyte, you’ve completely destroyed it ”. But Frank disagrees, saying that it is still Zenyte. He tells John that though it looks different, it performs all of the functions that are essential to it: it still transmits the rare combination of chemicals and still creates a perfectly hospitable environment for the worms.
1.6 Study 6 (Footnote 13: ownership and function)
1.6.1 Same owner, preserves function
One day while mowing, John discovered a rock in his backyard which was glowing in a strange way. After studying the rock he realized that it was glowing because it serves as a home to some special microorganisms which feed on the minerals in the rock.
After keeping the rock in his house for a year, John decides that he does not want the rock in his house anymore. He considers giving it to his neighbor Frank but instead decides that he’d rather keep it for himself. Since he wants to keep it but doesn’t want it in his house, he decides to just throw it in his backyard so he can enjoy it when he is mowing.
The rock now glows even brighter than before and the microorganisms flourish as they continue to feed on the minerals in the rock
1.6.2 Same owner, loses function
One day while mowing, John discovered a rock in his backyard which was glowing in a strange way. After studying the rock he realized that it was glowing because it serves as a home to some special microorganisms which feed on the minerals in the rock.
After keeping the rock in his house for a year, John decides that he does not want the rock in his house anymore. He considers giving it to his neighbor Frank but instead decides that he’d rather keep it for himself. Since he wants to keep it but doesn’t want it in his house, he decides to just throw it in his backyard so he can enjoy it when he is mowing.
The rock, however, stops glowing and the microorganisms it hosts begin dying.
1.6.3 Different owner, preserves function
One day while mowing, John discovered a rock in his backyard which was glowing in a strange way. After studying the rock he realized that it was glowing because it serves as a home to some special microorganisms which feed on the minerals in the rock.
After keeping the rock in his house for a year, John decides that he does not want the rock anymore. He decides to give it to his neighbor Frank. To surprise him, John decides that he’ll throw it in Frank’s front yard so that he’ll see it when he gets the morning paper. So, he throws the rock in Frank’s front yard. The rock now glows even brighter than before and the microorganisms flourish as they continue to feed on the minerals in the rock.
The next morning Frank finds the rock when he gets the paper. He picks it up and decides to take it inside his house to display over his fireplace.
1.6.4 Different owner, loses function
One day while mowing, John discovered a rock in his backyard which was glowing in a strange way. After studying the rock he realized that it was glowing because it serves as a home to some special microorganisms which feed on the minerals in the rock.
After keeping the rock in his house for a year, John decides that he does not want the rock anymore. He decides to give it to his neighbor Frank. To surprise him, John decides that he’ll throw it in Frank’s front yard so that he’ll see it when he gets the morning paper. So, he throws the rock in Frank’s front yard. The rock, however, stops glowing and the microorganisms it hosts begin dying.
The next morning Frank finds the rock when he gets the paper. He picks it up and decides to take it inside his house to display over his fireplace.
1.6.5 Probe
Is the rock that [Frank/John] now has really the same rock that John originally found in his backyard?
1 = No it is different, 7 = Yes, it is the same
1.6.6 Results
There was a large-sized effect of whether the rock lost (M = 4.71, SD = 2.16) or preserved (M = 6.49, SD = 0.971) its function on persistence judgments F(1, 137) = 40.99, \(p<.001\), np2 = 0.230. There was no effect of whether John (M = 5.63, SD = 1.89) or Frank (M = 5.71, SD = 1.82) owned the rock, F(1, 137) = 0.002, \(p=.967\) and no interaction between ownership and function F(1, 137) = 0.054, p = . 816
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rose, D. Persistence through function preservation. Synthese 192, 97–146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0555-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0555-6