Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:18:47.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Martin Mahner  and
Mario Bunge
Martin Mahner
Affiliation:
Center for Inquiry-Europe; Department of Philosophy, McGill University
Mario Bunge*
Affiliation:
Center for Inquiry-Europe; Department of Philosophy, McGill University
*
†Send requests for reprints to Martin Mahner, Center for Inquiry-Europe, Arheilger Weg 11, D-64380 Rossdorf, Germany; email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we examine the following problems: How many concepts of function are there in biology, social science, and technology? Are they logically related and if so, how? Which of these function concepts effect a functional explanation as opposed to a mere functional account? What are the consequences of a pluralist view of functions for functionalism? We submit that there are five concepts of function in biology, which are logically related in a particular way, and six function concepts in social science and technology. Only two of them may help effect a genuine functional explanation. Finally, our synthetic approach allows us to distinguish four different varieties of functionalism in biology, psychology, social science, and technology: formalist, black boxist, adaptationist, and teleological. And only one of them is explanatory in the strong sense defended here.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 75 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

We thank Michael Kary and Dan A. Seni, as well as an anonymous referee for useful suggestions that helped to improve the original manuscript.

References

Ahouse, Jeremy C. (1998), “The Tragedy of a priori Selectionism: Dennett and Gould on Adaptationism”, Biology and Philosophy 13: 359–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akiyama, Kaneo (1991), Function Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
Amundson, Ron and Lauder, George V. (1994), “Function Without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology”, Biology and Philosophy 9: 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernier, Réjane and Pirlot, Paul (1977), Organe et fonction. Essai de biophilosophie. Paris, St Hyacinthe: Maloine-Doin-Edisem.Google Scholar
Bigelow, John and Pargetter, Robert (1987), “Functions”, Journal of Philosophy 84: 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Ned (1980), “What Is Functionalism?”, in Block, Ned (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 171–184.Google Scholar
Bock, Walter J. and Wahlert, Gerd von (1965), “Adaptation and the Form-Function Complex”, Evolution 19: 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, Margaret A. (1999), “Is Metabolism Necessary?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50: 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudon, Raymond (1999), Le sens des valeurs. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Brandon, Robert N. (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buller, David J. (1998), “Etiological Theories of Function: A Geographical Survey”, Biology and Philosophy 13: 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, Mario A. (1967), Scientific Research, Vol. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag. [Rev. ed. (1998), Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers]Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario A. (1983), Understanding the World (Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Vol. 6) Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario A. (1985), Philosophy of Science and Technology, Part II: Life Science, Social Science and Technology (Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Vol. 7-II), Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario A. (1996), Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario A. (1997), “Mechanism and Explanation”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27: 410–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, Mario A. (1998), Social Science Under Debate. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekaran, Balakrishnan and Josephson, John R. (1997), “Representing Function as Effect”, in Modarres, Mohammed (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Functional Modeling of Complex Technical Systems. Center for Technology Risk Studies, College Park: University of Maryland, 3–16.Google Scholar
Childe, Gordon (1947), History. London: Cobbett Press.Google Scholar
Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John (1987), “From Evolution to Behavior: Evolutionary Psychology as the Missing Link”, in Dupré, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best. Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 277–306.Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Paul S. (2000), “Malfunctions”, Biology and Philosophy 15: 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (1978), Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Montgomery: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (1995), Darwin's Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile (1972), Selected Writings. Translated and edited by A. Giddens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. (1981), “The Mind-Body Problem”, Scientific American 244(1): 114–123.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1993), “Functions: Consensus without Unity”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74: 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1998) “Maternal Effects: On Dennett and Darwin's Dangerous Idea”, Philosophy of Science 65: 709–720.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. (1997a), “Darwinian Fundamentalism”, New York Review of Books 44(10): 34–37.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. (1997b) “Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism”, New York Review of Books 44(11): 47–52.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. and Lewontin, Richard C. (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 205: 581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. and Vrba, Elizabeth S. (1982), “Exaptation—A Missing Term in the Science of Form”, Paleobiology 8: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1993), “Functional Analysis and Proper Functions”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), “Function and Design”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18: 379–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, Christopher G. (1989), “Artificial Life”, in Langton, Christopher G. (ed.), Artificial Life. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley, 1–47.Google Scholar
Langton, Christopher G. (1991), “Introduction”, in Langton, C.G., Taylor, C., Farmer, J.D., and Rasmussen, S. (eds.), Artificial Life II. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley, 3–23.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elizabeth A. (1999), “Evolutionary Psychology: The Burdens of Proof”, Biology and Philosophy 14: 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahner, Martin and Bunge, Mario A. (1997), Foundations of Biophilosophy. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahner, Martin and Bunge, Mario A. (2000), Philosophische Grundlagen der Biologie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1944), A Scientific Theory of Culture. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. (1989), “In Defense of Proper Functions”, Philosophy of Science 56: 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1977), “Teleology Revisited”, Journal of Philosophy 74: 261–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, Karen (1991), “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analysist's Defense”, Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Randolph M. and Williams, George C. (1994), Why We Get Sick. The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott (1951), The Social System. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Preston, Beth (1998), “Why Is a Wing Like a Spoon? A Pluralist Theory of Function”, Journal of Philosophy 95: 215–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Elizabeth W. (1985), “What is Wrong with Etiological Accounts of Biological Function?”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66: 310–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. (1935), “On the Concept of Function in Social Science”, American Anthropologist 37: 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Thomas J. and Kasi, Muthiah (1986), Function Analysis: The Stepping Stones to Good Value. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. (1989), A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Umeda, Yasushi and Tomiyama, Tetsuo (1997), “Functional Reasoning in Design”, IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and their Applications 12: 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderburg, Willem H. (2000), The Labyrinth of Technology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, David M. (1998), “The Scope of Selection: Sober and Neander on What Natural Selection Explains”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, David M. and Ariew, André (1996), “A Taxonomy of Functions”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26: 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, George C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1976), “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account”, PSA 1974. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 671–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, Arno G. (1999), Explanation Without a Cause. Utrecht: Zeno.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry (1976), Teleological Explanations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar