Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrative pluralism for biological function

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We introduce a new type of pluralism about biological function that, in contrast to existing, demonstrates a practical integration among the term’s different meanings. In particular, we show how to generalize Sandra Mitchell’s notion of integrative pluralism to circumstances where multiple epistemic tools of the same type are jointly necessary to solve scientific problems. We argue that the multiple definitions of biological function operate jointly in this way based on how biologists explain the evolution of protein function. To clarify how our account relates to existing views, we introduce a general typology for monist and pluralist accounts along with standardized criteria for judging which is best supported by evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sabina Leonelli’s recent work on bio-ontologies does address the general importance and potential downfalls of standardized vocabulary for data packaging and integration, for example, but she doesn’t draw clear implications for conceptual analysis of single terms (Leonelli 2016).

  2. Mitchell also gives in-principle reasons against theoretical unification for the social insect case, but we use a weaker condition that is based only on present knowledge.

  3. Note that at the time of the duplication the gene is assumed to still be fulfilling the propensity functions for which it underwent selection in the past. Technically the gene therefore has two or more paired sets of evolutionary and propensity functions.

  4. Havstad originally proposed the first four of these schemas in her manuscript, though we have revised their definitions in our presentation.

  5. It is not clear what distinctions Saborido means to draw between approaches, theories, views, and definitions in the figure. We will interpret the hierarchy as relating definitions.

  6. Walsh and Ariew in particular move ambiguously between attributing functions to parts and traits without clarifying whether their concept of trait also includes properties of whole systems (e.g. Walsh and Ariew 1996, p. 493, 501–502, 506).

References

  • Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose. Biol Philos 9:443–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arenas M (2015) Trends in substitution models of molecular evolution. Front Genet 6(52):319

    Google Scholar 

  • Artiga M (2011) Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Appl Ontol 6(2):105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autumn K, Ryan MJ, Wake DB (2002) Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Q Rev Biol 77(4):383–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel W (1993) Integrating sciences by creating new disciplines: the case of cell biology. Biol Philos 8(3):277–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigelow J, Pargetter R (1987) Functions. J Philos 84(4):181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binney N (2018a) The function of the heart is historically contingent. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 68–69:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binney N (2018b) The function of the heart is not obvious. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 68–69:56–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boorse C (1976) Wright on functions. Philos Rev 85(1):70–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boorse C (2014) A second rebuttal on health. J Med Philos 39(6):683–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd RN (1999) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 141–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN (2013) A general case for functional pluralism. In: Huneman P (ed) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 97–104

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2003) Species pluralism does not imply species eliminativism. Philos Sci 70(5):1305–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2009) The epistemic goal of a concept. Synthese 177(1):19–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2011) Natural kinds and concepts: a pragmatist and methodologically naturalistic account. In: Knowles J, Rydenfelt H (eds) Pragmatism, science, and naturalism. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, Bern, pp 171–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2013) Integration in biology: philosophical perspectives on the dynamics of interdisciplinarity. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):461–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I, Love AC (2012) Conceptualizing evolutionary novelty. J Exp Zool Part B 318(6):417–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I, Rosario E (Forthcoming) Strategic conceptual engineering for epistemic and social aims. In: Burgess A, Cappelen H, Plunkett D (eds) Conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Brigandt I, Steinle F (2012) The dynamics of scientific concepts. In: Feest U (ed) Scientific concepts and investigative practice. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 75–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Bzovy J (2017) Species pluralism: conceptual, ontological, and practical dimensions. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4309. Accessed 11 Apr 2019

  • Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72(20):741–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie A (2014) Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biol Philos 30(2):187–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill I (2005) The study of function in behavioural ecology. Anim Biol 55(4):399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darden L, Maull N (1977) Interfield theories. Philos Sci 44(1):43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry. Irvington Publishers, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dittmar K, Liberles D (2011) Evolution after gene duplication. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz NM, Sterner BW (2018) To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data. Database. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garson J (2016) A critical overview of biological functions. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garson J (2017) How to be a function pluralist. Br J Philos Sci 69:1101–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garson J, Piccinini G (2014) Functions must be performed at appropriate rates in appropriate situations. Br J Philos Sci 65(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson EM (2014) The interaction of research systems in the Evo-devo juncture. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology, vol 307. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 441–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (1993) Functions: consensus without unity. Pac Philos Q 74:193–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (1994) A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28(3):344–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Darwinian Individuals. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals: perspectives on biological associations and emerging individuality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn MW (2009) Distinguishing among evolutionary models for the maintenance of gene duplicates. J Hered 100(5):605–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman DM (2014) Health and functional efficiency. J Med Philos 39(6):634–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay LE (2000) Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura M (1985) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingma E (2010) Paracetamol, poison, and polio. Br J Philos Sci 61(2):241–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingma E (2015) Situation-specific disease and dispositional function. Br J Philos Sci 67(2):391–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1981) Explanatory unification. Philos Sci 48(4):507–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1993) The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer DM (2013) Statistical theories of functions and the problem of epidemic disease. Biol Philos 28(3):423–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer DM (2018) Philosophical analyses of scientific concepts. Philos Compass 13(9):e12513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohs U (2007) Functions as based on a concept of general design. Synthese 166(1):69–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli S (2013) Integrating data to acquire new knowledge: three modes of integration in plant science. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):503–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli S (2016) Data-centric biology: a philosophical study. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li W-H (1983) Evolution of duplicate genes and pseudogenes. In: Nei M, Koehn RK (eds) Evolution of genes and proteins. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 14–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2008) Explaining evolutionary innovations and novelties. Philos Sci 75(5):874–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love AC, Lugar GL (2013) Dimensions of integration in interdisciplinary explanations of the origin of evolutionary novelty. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):537–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M, Katju V (2004) The altered evolutionary trajectories of gene duplicates. Trends Genet 20(11):544–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machery E (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahner M, Bunge M (2001) Function and functionalism: a synthetic perspective. Philos Sci 68(1):75–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo DG (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Millerand F, Ribes D, Baker KS, Bowker GC (2013) Making an issue out of a standard: storytelling practices in a scientific community. Sci Technol Hum Values 38(1):7–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan RG (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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SD (1995) Function, fitness and disposition. Biol Philos 10:39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SD (2002) Integrative pluralism. Biol Philos 17:55–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell SD (2003) Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno A, Mossio M (2015) Biological autonomy. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mossio M, Saborido C (2016) Functions, organization and etiology: a reply to artiga and martinez. Acta Biotheor 64(3):263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossio M, Saborido C, Moreno A (2009) An organizational account of biological functions. Br J Philos Sci 60(4):813–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neander K (1991) Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense. Philos Sci 58(2):168–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickles T (1981) What is a problem that we may solve it? Synthese 47:85–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley MA, Soyer OS (2012) The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley MA, Elliott KC, Burian RM (2010) From genetic to genomic regulation: iterativity in microRNA research. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 41(4):407–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlman M (2009) Changing the mission of theories of teleology: DOs and DON’Ts for thinking about function. In: Krohs U, Kroes P (eds) Functions in biological and artificial worlds. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 17–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Piatigorsky J (2007) Gene sharing and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2003) Species as family resemblance concepts. BioEssays 25(6):596–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H (1973) Meaning and reference. J Philos 70(19):699–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queloz M (2019) The points of concepts. Can J Philos 37(1):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse ME (1971) Functional statements in biology. Philos Sci 38(1):87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saborido C (2014) New directions in the philosophy of biology: a new taxonomy of functions. In: Galavotti MC, Dieks D, Gonzalez WJ, Hartmann S, Uebel T, Weber M (eds) New directions in the philosophy of science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 235–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Saborido C, Mossio M, Alvaro M (2011) Biological organization and cross-generation functions. Br J Philos Sci 62(3):583–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saborido C, Moreno A, González-Moreno M, Clemente JCH (2016) Organizational malfunctions and the notions of health and disease. In: Giroux É (ed) Naturalism in the philosophy of health. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 101–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner KF (1967) Approaches to reduction. Philos Sci 34(2):137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ségurel L, Bon C (2017) On the evolution of lactase persistence in humans. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 18(1):297–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh DM, Ariew A (1996) A taxonomy of functions. Can J Philos 26(4):493–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters CK (2014) Shifting attention from theory to practice in philosophy of biology. In: Galavotti MC (ed) New directions in the philosophy of science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 121–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson M (2006) Wandering significance. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt WC (2013) Evolution and the stability of functional architectures. In: Huneman P (ed) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 19–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J (2017) Scientific explanation. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2017 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/. Accessed 11 Apr 2019

  • Wouters AG (2003) Four notions of biological function. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34(4):633–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters AG (2007) Design explanation: determining the constraints on what can be alive. Erkenntnis 67(1):65–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright L (1973) Functions. Philos Rev 82(2):139–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The idea for practice-oriented conceptual analysis first emerged from conversations Sterner had with Joyce Havstad and Scott Lidgard at the Field Museum, but the views we present here are our own and do not necessarily reflect their considered positions. We thank the organizers and participants of the Scientific Knowledge Under Pluralism conference at the University of Pittsburgh in 2017, and the University of Michigan’s Society of Fellows program for providing us with the time and support to collaborate on this project. We also thank the two anonymous referees for this manuscript who provided helpful and constructive responses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

    Samuel Cusimano

  2. School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Beckett Sterner

Authors
  1. Samuel Cusimano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beckett Sterner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beckett Sterner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cusimano, S., Sterner, B. Integrative pluralism for biological function. Biol Philos 34, 55 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9717-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9717-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation