Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:08:04.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against Organizational Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Justin Garson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, several philosophers have developed a new approach to biological functions, the organizational (or systems-theoretic) approach. This is not a single theory but a family of theories based on the idea that a trait token can acquire a function by virtue of the way it contributes to a complex, organized system and thereby to its own continued persistence as a token. I argue that the organizational approach faces a serious liberality objection. I examine three different ways organizational theorists have tried to avoid that objection and show how they fail.

Type
Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 1093 - 1103
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 am very grateful to Matteo Mossio and Gerhard Schlosser for comments on an earlier version of this argument. I am also grateful to the audience members at the 2016 meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association for their insightful criticisms and suggestions.

References

Association, American Psychiatric. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, R., and Lauder, G. V. 1994. “Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology.” Biology and Philosophy 9:443–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artiga, M., and Martínez, M. 2016. “The Organizational Account of Function Is an Etiological Account of Function.” Acta Biotheoretica 64:105–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Bedau, M. 1991. “Can Biological Teleology Be Naturalized?” Journal of Philosophy 88:647–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorse, C. 1976. “Wright on Functions.” Philosophical Review 85:70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, R. N., et al. 2013. “Intolerance of Uncertainty as a Contributor to Fear and Avoidance Symptoms of Panic Attacks.” Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 42:328–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, W. D., and Bickhard, M. H. 2002. “The Process Dynamics of Normative Function.” Monist 85:3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. M. 1986. “A Cognitive Approach to Panic Disorder.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 24:461–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. M. 1997. “Panic Disorder and Social Phobia.” In Science and Practice of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, ed. Clark, D. M. and Fairburn, C. G., 119–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delancey, C. S. 2006. “Ontology and Teleofunctions: A Defense and Revision of the Systematic Account of Teleological Explanation.” Synthese 150:69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. 2011. “Selected Effects Functions and Causal Role Functions in the Brain: The Case for an Etiological Approach to Neuroscience.” Biology and Philosophy 26:547–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. 2012. “Function, Selection, and Construction in the Brain.” Synthese 189:451–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. 2013. “The Functional Sense of Mechanism.” Philosophy of Science 80:317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. 2015. The Biological Mind: A Philosophical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garson, J. 2016. A Critical Overview of Biological Functions. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, J. 2017. “A Generalized Selected Effects Theory of Function.” Philosophy of Science 84:523–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatenby, R. A., and Gillies, R. J. 2008. “A Microenvironmental Model of Carcinogenesis.” Nature Reviews Cancer 8:56–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Germain, P. 2012. “Cancer Cells and Adaptive Explanations.” Biology and Philosophy 27:785–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965. “The Logic of Functional Analysis.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation, ed. Hempel, C. G., 297–330. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kingma, E. 2010. “Paracetamol, Poison, and Polio: Why Boorse’s Account of Function Fails to Distinguish Health and Disease.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61:241–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, Jennifer, et al. 2012. “Melanomas Resist T-Cell Therapy through Inflammation-Induced Reversible Dedifferentiation.” Nature 490:412–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lean, C., and Plutynski, A. 2016. “The Evolution of Failure: Explaining Cancer as an Evolutionary Process.” Biology and Philosophy 31:39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludewig, S., Geyer, M. A., Ramseier, M., Vollenweider, F. X., Rechsteiner, E., and Cattapan-Ludewig, K. 2005. “Information-Processing Deficits and Cognitive Dysfunction in Panic Disorder.” Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 30:37–43.Google ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, P. 2001. What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moreno, A., and Mossio, M. 2015. Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and Theoretical Inquiry. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossio, M., and Saborido, C. 2016. “Functions, Organization, and Etiology: A Reply to Artiga and Martínez.” Acta Biotheoretica 64:263–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mossio, M., Saborido, C., and Moreno, A. 2009. “An Organizational Account for Biological Functions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60:813–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. 1953. “Teleological Explanation and Teleological Systems.” In Vision and Action, ed. Ratner, S., 537–58. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Nanay, B. 2010. “A Modal Theory of Function.” Journal of Philosophy 107:412–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. 1983. “Abnormal Psychobiology.” PhD diss., La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Neander, K. 1991. “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense.” Philosophy of Science 58:168–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saborido, C., Mossio, M., and Moreno, A. 2011. “Biological Organization and Cross-Generation Functions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62:583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salkovskis, P. M. 1991. “The Importance of Behaviour in the Maintenance of Anxiety and Panic: A Cognitive Account.” Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 19:6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, S. 2005. Molecular Models of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schlosser, G. 1998. “Self-Re-production and Functionality: A Systems-Theoretical Approach to Teleological Explanation.” Synthese 116:303–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. 1996. Deconstructing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F. 1979. Principles of Biological Autonomy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 2005. Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. 1973. “Functions.” Philosophical Review 82:139–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, L. 2013. “Epilogue.” In Function: Selection and Mechanisms, ed. Huneman, P., 233–43. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar