FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATIONS AND NATURAL NORMS
- 1 September 1995
- Vol. 8 (2) , 143-160
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.1995.tb00076.x
Abstract
In this paper, I try to develop an account of functions which might be of use to a biologist engaged in classifying and explaining natural phenomena. The most pressing difficulty facing such an account is the need to reconcile the normativity of function statements with their explanatory force. I consider two familiar accounts of function statements, offered by Andrew Woodfield (an ‘Actual Capacity Theorist’) and Larry Wright (a ‘Historical Theorist’). I examine both accounts in search of the strongest possible formulation of each type of theory. I fail to find a formulation of the ACT which is completely immune from counterexamples, but I do find a satisfactory formulation of the HT. In particular, I argue that the HT should incorporate a point central to the ACT that functions involve a means/end relationship between two devices. I then consider functional explanations: I argue that an ACT which holds that function statements are intrinsically explanatory cannot offer a satisfactory account. The account offered by Woodfield, who rejects this assumption, is adequate, though less attractive than the account suggested by the HT. I conclude by considering how the HT can account for functional norms.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- BiosemanticsThe Journal of Philosophy, 1989
- FunctionsThe Journal of Philosophy, 1987
- BETH'S THEOREM AND REDUCTIONISMPacific Philosophical Quarterly, 1985
- Function StatementsPhilosophy of Science, 1977
- Functional AnalysisThe Journal of Philosophy, 1975