Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:12:05.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Function Attributions and Functional Explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Berent Enç
Berent Enç*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A series of explanatory hypotheses are examined under the assumption that the logical structure of function attributions is dependent on the methodological constraints which these hypotheses conform to. Two theses are argued for: (1) Given these methodological constraints, if something has the function of doing Y, then normally it is the only kind of thing that can do Y in that kind of system. (2) What distinguishes function attributions from causal attribution is not that function attributions explain the etiology Of the causally efficacious object, as Wright has suggested. The distinction lies rather in that the object's having the effect, which is attributed to it as its function, must figure in the explanation of why it does what it does to achieve that effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 343 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am indebted to colleagues and graduate students at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for criticisms and encouragement. Special thanks are due Fred Adams, Fred Dretske, Elliott Sober and Dennis Stampe.

References

Achinstein, P. (1977), “Function Statements” Philosophy of Science 44 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaumont, W. (1833), Experiments and Observations on Gastric Juice and the Physiology of Digestion. New York: F. P. Allen.Google Scholar
Boorse, C. (1976), “Wright on Functions” Philosophical Review 84: 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975), “Functional Analysis” Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enc, B. (1976), “Reference on Theoretical Terms” Nous 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enc, B. (1975), “Spiral Dependence between Theories and Taxonomy” Inquiry 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1968), Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1974), Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Crowell, Inc.Google Scholar
Hall, A. R. (1962), The Scientific Revolution. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “The Logic of Functional Analysis” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, pp. 297–330.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1974), The Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1977), “Teleology Revisited” Journal of Philosophy 74: 261–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. R. (1963), “The Mechanisms of Hunger and Thirst” In Psychology in the Making. Edited by Postman, Leo. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 73–143.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Schiff, M. (1867), Lecons sur la physiologie de la digestion. Florence: H. Loescher.Google Scholar
Watson, J. D. (1970), Molecular Biology of the Gene. New York: W. A. Benjamin Inc.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1972), “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 3: 1–80.Google Scholar
Woodfield, A. (1976), Teleology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1973), “Functions” Philosophical Review 82: 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. (1976), Teleological Explanations. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar