Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:10:03.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-functional Analysis: Phylogenetical Restrictions on Causal Role Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Predrag Šustar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most recent resurgence of philosophical attention to the so-called ‘functional talk’ in the sciences can be summarized in terms of the following questions: (Q1) What kind of restrictions, and in particular, what kind of evolutionary restrictions as well as to what extent, is involved in functional ascriptions? (Q2) How can we account for the explanatory import of function-ascribing statements? This paper addresses these questions through a modified version of Cummins’ functional analysis. The modification in question is concerned with phylogenetical restrictions on causal role functions, and it stems from an analysis of some primary areas in molecular biology. I examine how evolutionary consideration affects the so-called ‘function-analytical explanatory strategy’ (Cummins [1975] 1998, 2002). Finally, I argue that the neo-functional analysis here proposed accounts for a certain convergence between the main rival theories of biological function.

Type
Philosophy of Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 601 - 615
Copyright
Copyright © 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

‡

I wish to thank David Davies, Eva Jablonka, Thomas Reydon, and Marcel Weber for their helpful comments.

References

Alberts, Bruce, et al. (1989), Molecular Biology of the Cell. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Amundson, Ron, and Lauder, George V. (1994), “Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology”, Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology 9:443–469.Google Scholar
Baltimore, David (1970), “Viral RNA-Dependent DNA Polymerases”, Viral RNA-Dependent DNA Polymerases 226:1209–1211.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William (1986), “Teleological Functional Analyses and the Hierarchical Organization of Nature”, in Rescher, Nicholas (ed.), Teleology and Natural Science. Landham, MD: University Press of America, 26–48.Google Scholar
Bigelow, John, and Pargetter, Robert (1987), “Functions”, Functions 84:181–196.Google Scholar
Boorse, Christopher (1976), “Wright on Functions”, Wright on Functions 85:70–86.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl F. (2001), “Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy”, Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy 68:53–74.Google Scholar
Crick, Francis H. C. (1958), “On Protein Synthesis”, On Protein Synthesis 12:138–163.Google ScholarPubMed
Crick, Francis H. C. (1968), “The Origin of the Genetic Code”, The Origin of the Genetic Code 38:367–379.Google ScholarPubMed
Crick, Francis H. C. (1970), “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology”, Central Dogma of Molecular Biology 227:561–563.Google ScholarPubMed
Cummins, Robert ([1975] 1998), “Functional Analysis”, in Allen, Colin, Bekoff, Marc, and Lauder, George V. (eds.), Nature’s Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 169–196.Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert (1983), The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert (2002), “Neo-teleology” in Ariew, André, Cummins, Robert, and Perlman, Mark (eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 157–172.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Michael R. (1998), “Paradox and Persuasion: Negotiating the Place of Molecular Evolution within Evolutionary Biology”, Paradox and Persuasion: Negotiating the Place of Molecular Evolution within Evolutionary Biology 31:85–111.Google ScholarPubMed
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1964), “Biology, Molecular and Organismic”, Biology, Molecular and Organismic 4:443–452.Google ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, Peter ([1994] 1998), “A Modern History Theory of Functions”, in Allen, Colin, Bekoff, Marc, and Lauder, George V. (eds.), Nature’s Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 453–477.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2000), “On the Theoretical Role of ‘Genetic Coding’”, On the Theoretical Role of ‘Genetic Coding’ 67:26–44.Google Scholar
Horan, Barbara L. (1989), “Functional Explanations in Sociobiology”, Functional Explanations in Sociobiology 4:131–158.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip S. ([1993] 2003), “Function and Design”, in In Mendel’s Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 159–176.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. (2003), Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morange, Michel ([1994] 2000), A History of Molecular Biology. Translated by M. Cobb. Originally published as Histoire de la biologie moléculaire (Paris: Editions La Découverte). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perlman, Mark (2004), “The Modern Philosophical Resurrection of Teleology”, The Modern Philosophical Resurrection of Teleology 87:3–51.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael (2002), “Evolutionary Biology and Teleological Thinking”, in Ariew, André, Cummins, Robert, and Perlman, Mark (eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 33–60.Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra (2005), Molecular Models of Life: Philosophical Papers on Molecular Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stryer, Lubert (1988), Biochemistry. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Tabery, James G. (2004), “Synthesizing Activities and Interactions in the Concept of a Mechanism”, Synthesizing Activities and Interactions in the Concept of a Mechanism 71:1–15.Google Scholar
Temin, Howard M., and Mizutani, Satoshi (1970), “RNA-Dependent DNA Polymerase in Virions of Rous Sarcoma Virus”, RNA-Dependent DNA Polymerase in Virions of Rous Sarcoma Virus 226:1211–1213.Google ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, Nikolaas (1963), “On Aims and Methods of Ethology”, Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 20:410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Marcel (2004), Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, Arno (2003), “Four Notions of Biological Function”, Four Notions of Biological Function 34:633–668.Google Scholar
Wouters, Arno (2004), “The Functional Perspective of Organismal Biology”, in Reydon, Thomas A. C., and Hemerik, Lia (eds.), Current Themes in Theoretical Biology: A Dutch Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, 33–69.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry (1973), “Functions”, Functions 82:139–168.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry (1976), Teleological Explanations. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar