Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 153–166 | Cite as

Functional Anatomy: A Taxonomic Proposal

  • Ingvar Johansson
  • Barry Smith
  • Katherine Munn
  • Nikoloz Tsikolia
  • Kathleen Elsner
  • Dominikus Ernst
  • Dirk Siebert
Article

Abstract

It is argued that medical science requires a classificatory system that (a) puts functions in the taxonomic center and (b) does justice ontologically to the difference between the processes which are the realizations of functions and the objects which are their bearers. We propose formulae for constructing such a system and describe some of its benefits. The arguments are general enough to be of interest to all the life sciences.

Keywords

Life Science Medical Science Classificatory System Functional Anatomy Taxonomic Proposal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bittner, T. and B. Smith (2001). Vagueness and Granular Partitions. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems—FOIS 2001, pp. 309−320. ACM Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Boorse, C. (1976), Wright on Functions. Philosophical Review 85: 70-86.Google Scholar
  3. Boorse, C. (2002), A Rebuttal on Functions. In: A. Ariew et al. (eds), Functions. New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, pp. 63–112. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Cummins, R. (1975). Functional Analysis. In: E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, pp. 49–69. MIT Press, Cambridge. Mass., second ed. 1994; originally in Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, R. (2002). Neo-Teleology. In: A. Ariew et al. (eds), Functions. New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, pp. 157–172. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Grenon, P. and B. Smith (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4: 69–103.Google Scholar
  7. Johansson, I. (2004). Functions, Function Concepts, and Scales. The Monist 86: 96–115.Google Scholar
  8. Johansson, I. (forthcoming). The Constituent Function Analysis of Functions. In: H.J. Koskinen, S. Pihlström and R. Vilkko (eds), Science—A Challenge to Philosophy. Papers presented at the XV Internordic Philosophical Symposium, Helsinki, May 2004. (Also at: http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html.)
  9. Manning, R.N. (1997). Biological Function, Selection, and Reduction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48: 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Matthen, M. (1997). Teleology and the Product Analogy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McShea, D.W. and E.P. Venit (2001): What Is a Part? In: G.P. Wagner (ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology, pp. 259–284. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Melander, P. (1997). Analyzing Functions. An Essay on a Fundamental Notion in Biology. Almkvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  13. Millikan, R.G. (1989). In Defence of Proper Functions. Philosophy of Science 56: 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Perlman, M. (2004). The Modern Philosophical Resurrection of Teleology. The Monist 86: 3–51.Google Scholar
  15. Rosse, C. and J.L. Mejino Jr. (2003). A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the Foundational Model of Anatomy. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 36: 478–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salthe, S.S. (1985). Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Their Structure and Representation. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, B. (2001). Fiat Objects. Topoi 20: 131–148.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, B., K. Munn, and I. Papakin (2004). Bodily Systems and the Spatial-Functional Structure of the Human Body. In: D. Pisanelli and M. Domenico (eds.), Ontologies in Medicine: Proceedings of the Workshop on Medical Ontologies, Rome, October 2003, pp. 39–63. IOS Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Wouters, A. (2003). Essay Review: Philosophers on Function. Acta Biotheoretica 51: 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wright, L. (1973). Functions. In: E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, pp. 27–47. MIT Press, Cambridge. Mass., 1994; originally in Philosophical Review 82: 139–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingvar Johansson
    • 1
  • Barry Smith
    • 1
  • Katherine Munn
    • 1
  • Nikoloz Tsikolia
    • 1
  • Kathleen Elsner
    • 1
  • Dominikus Ernst
    • 1
  • Dirk Siebert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Science (IFOMIS)University of SaarlandSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations