Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 39–54 | Cite as

Function, fitness and disposition

  • Sandra D. Mitchell
Article

Abstract

In this paper I discuss recent debates concerning etiological theories of functions. I defend an etiological theory against two criticisms, namely the ability to account for malfunction, and the problem of structural “doubles”. I then consider the arguments provided by Bigelow and Pargetter (1987) for a more “forward looking” account of functions as propensities or dispositions. I argue that their approach fails to address the explanatory problematic for which etiological theories were developed.

Key words

Function fitness dispositions explanation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock, J.: 1987, “Ardent Adaptationist”.Natural History 96, 4.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D.: 1969, “Dispositions are Causes”,Analysis,30, 23–26.Google Scholar
  3. Ayala, F.: 1970, “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology”,Philosophy of Science,37, 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Bigelow, J. and Pargetter, R.: 1987, “Functions”,Journal of Philosophy,LXXXIV,4, 181–196.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J.: 1991, “Culture and Co-operation”, in R.A. Hinde and J. Groebel (eds,);Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior, Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
  6. Brandon, R.: 1978, “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”,Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science IX, 3: 181–206.Google Scholar
  7. Brandon, R. and Beatt, J.: 1984, “Discussion: The Propensity Interpretation of ‘Fitness’ — No Interpretation is No substitute”,Philosophy of Science 51, 342–347.Google Scholar
  8. Brower, J. (1960) “Experimental Studies of Mimicry”,American Naturalist 44, 271–83.Google Scholar
  9. Brower, L. 1988 “Avian Predation on the Monarch Butterfly and its Implications for Mimicry Theory”, in L. Brower (ed.),Mimicry and the Evolutionary Process, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 4–6.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, N.: 1986, “Two Kinds of Teleological Explanation”, in A. Donagan, A.N. Perovich, Jr. and M. V. Wedin (eds.),Human nature and Natural Knowledge, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 201–210.Google Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Harvey, P. H.: 1977, “Primate Ecology and Social Organization”.Journal of Zoology London 183, 1–39.Google Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Harvey, P. H. and Rudder, B.: 1977, “Sexual Dimorphism, Socioeconomic Sex Ratio and Body Weight in Primates”,Nature 269, 797–800.Google Scholar
  13. Cummins, R.: 1975, “Functional Analysis”,Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–765.Google Scholar
  14. Darwin, C.: 1871,The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1981).Google Scholar
  15. Godfrey-Smith, P: 1994, “A Modern History Theory of Function”,Nous XXVIII:3, 344–62.Google Scholar
  16. Gould, S. J.: 1987a, “Freudian Slip”,Natural History 92, 14–21.Google Scholar
  17. Gould, S. J.: 1987b, “Stephen Jay Gould Replies”,Natural History 96, 4–6.Google Scholar
  18. Guildford, T.: 1988, “The Evolution of Conspicuous Coloration”, in L. Brower (ed.), pp. 7–21.Google Scholar
  19. Hempel, C. G.: 1959, “The Logic of Functional Analysis”, in L. Gross (ed.),Symposium on Sociological Theory, Harper and Row, New York. Reprinted in C. G. Hempel, 1965,Aspects of Scientific Explanation, The Free Press, New York, pp. 297–330.Google Scholar
  20. Horan, B. L.: 1989, “Functional Explanations in Sociobiobiology”,Biology and Philsophy 4, 131–158.Google Scholar
  21. Hull, D.: 1987, “On Human Nature”,PSA 1986, Volume 2, Philosophy of Science Association, 3–13.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P.: 1981, “Explanatory Unification”,Philosophy of Science,48, 507–531.Google Scholar
  23. Millikan, R. G.: 1984,Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, The MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. Millikan, R. G.: 1989, “In Defense of Proper Functions”,Philosophy of Science 56, 288–302.Google Scholar
  25. Mills, S. and Beatty J.: 1979, “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”,Philosophy of Science 46, 263–286.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, S. D.: 1987,“Why Functions (in Evolutionary Biology and Cultural Anthropology)”, unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, microfilm no. 8808338, U. M. I., Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell, S. D.: 1989, “The Causal Background for Functional Explanations”,International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3, 213–230.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, S. D.: 1992, “On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations”,American Zoologist 32.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, S. D.: 1993, “Comments and Criticism: Dispositions or Etiologies? A Comment on Bigelow and Pargetter”The Journal of Philosophy XC, 249–259.Google Scholar
  30. Nagel, E.: 1977, “Teleology Revisited”,Journal of Philosophy 74, 261–301.Google Scholar
  31. Neander, K.: 1991, “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense”,Philosophy of Science,58, 168–184.Google Scholar
  32. Nordmann, A.: 1990, “Persistent Propensities: Portrait of a Familiar Controversy”,Biology and Philosophy 5, 379–399.Google Scholar
  33. Prior, E.: 1985,Dispositions, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.Google Scholar
  34. Prior, E., Pargetter, R. and Jackson, F.: 1982, “Three Theses about Dispositions”,American Philosophical Quarterly 19, 252.Google Scholar
  35. Rappaport, R.: 1968,Pigs for the Ancestors, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Resnik, D.: 1988, “Survival of the Fittest: Law of Evolution or Law of Probability?”,Biology and Philosophy 3, 349–362.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenberg, A.: 1982, “Discussion: On the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”,Philosophy of Science 49, 268–273.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenberg, A.: 1985,The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Selander, R. K.: (1972), “Sexual Selection and Dimorphism in Birds”, in B. G. Campbell (ed.),Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 180–230.Google Scholar
  40. Sober, E.: 1984a,The Nature of Selection, The MIT press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Sober, E.: 1984b, “Force and Disposition in Evolutionary Theory”, in C. Hookway (ed.),Minds, Machines and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 43–61.Google Scholar
  42. Soltis, J., Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J.: 1991, “Can Group-Functional Behaviors Evolve by Cultural Group Selection? An Empirical Test”,Preprint Series of the Research Group on Biological Foundations of Human Culture (1991/92), at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, University of Bielefeld, Germany.Google Scholar
  43. Thornhill, R.: 1979, “Review ofInsect Behavior, by R. W. Matthews and J. R. Matthews”,Quarterly Review of Biology 54, 365–6.Google Scholar
  44. Vayda, A.: 1974, “Warfare in Ecological Perspective”,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5, 183–93.Google Scholar
  45. Vayda, A.: 1989, “Explaining Why Marings Fought”,Journal of Anthropological Research,45, No. 2, 159–77.Google Scholar
  46. Waters, K.: 1986, “Natural Selection without Survival of the Fittest”,Biology and Philosophy,1, 207–225.Google Scholar
  47. Wickler, W.: 1968Mimicry in Plants and Animals. McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, G. C.: 1966,Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  49. Wimsatt, W. C.: 1972, “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements”,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3, 1–80.Google Scholar
  50. Wouters, A (forthcoming) “Viability Explanation”,Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  51. Wright, L.: 1973, “Functions”,Philosophical Review LXXXII, 2, 139–168.Google Scholar
  52. Wright, L.: 1976,Teleological Explanations, University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra D. Mitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations