British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):813-841 (2009)
AbstractIn this paper, we develop an organizational account that defines biological functions as causal relations subject to closure in living systems, interpreted as the most typical example of organizationally closed and differentiated self-maintaining systems. We argue that this account adequately grounds the teleological and normative dimensions of functions in the current organization of a system, insofar as it provides an explanation for the existence of the function bearer and, at the same time, identifies in a non-arbitrary way the norms that functions are supposed to obey. Accordingly, we suggest that the organizational account combines the etiological and dispositional perspectives in an integrated theoretical framework. IntroductionDispositional ApproachesEtiological TheoriesBiological Self-maintenance Closure, teleology, and normativityOrganizational differentiationFunctions C1: Contributing to the maintenance of the organization C2: Producing the functional trait Implications and Objections Functional versus useful Dysfunctions, side effects, and accidental contributionsProper functions and selected effectsReproductionRelation with other ‘unitarian’ approachesConclusions
Similar books and articles
Artifacts and organisms: A case for a new etiological theory of functions.Françoise Longy - 2007 - In Philippe Huneman (ed.), Functions: Selection and Mechanisms. Springer. pp. 185--211.
Proper environment and the SEP account of biological function.Michael Bertrand - 2013 - Synthese 190 (9):1503-1517.
Artificial functions and the meaning of literary works.Carolyn Price - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (1):1-17.
Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy.Carl F. Craver - 2001 - Philosophy of Science 68 (1):53-74.
On unification : Taking technical functions as objective (and biological functions as subjective).Pieter E. Vermaas - 2009 - In Ulrich Krohs & Peter Kroes (eds.), Functions in Biological and Artificial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives. MIT Press.
Biological Organization and Cross-Generation Functions.Cristian Saborido, Matteo Mossio & Alvaro Moreno - 2011 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):583-606.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Concept of Mechanism in Biology.Daniel J. Nicholson - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (1):152-163.
A Generalized Selected Effects Theory of Function.Justin Garson - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (3):523-543.
What makes biological organisation teleological?Matteo Mossio & Leonardo Bich - 2017 - Synthese 194 (4):1089-1114.
Reconceptualizing the Organism: From Complex Machine to Flowing Stream.Daniel J. Nicholson - 2018 - In Daniel J. Nicholson & John A. Dupre (eds.), Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology.
References found in this work
In defense of proper functions.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 1989 - Philosophy of Science 56 (June):288-302.