On malfunctioning software Article First Online: 03 December 2014 Received: 30 March 2014 Accepted: 13 November 2014 DOI :
10.1007/s11229-014-0610-3
Cite this article as: Floridi, L., Fresco, N. & Primiero, G. Synthese (2015) 192: 1199. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0610-3 Abstract Artefacts do not always do what they are supposed to, due to a variety of reasons, including manufacturing problems, poor maintenance, and normal wear-and-tear. Since software is an artefact, it should be subject to malfunctioning in the same sense in which other artefacts can malfunction. Yet, whether software is on a par with other artefacts when it comes to malfunctioning crucially depends on the abstraction used in the analysis. We distinguish between “negative” and “positive” notions of malfunction. A negative malfunction, or dysfunction , occurs when an artefact token either does not (sometimes) or cannot (ever) do what it is supposed to. A positive malfunction, or misfunction , occurs when an artefact token may do what is supposed to but, at least occasionally, it also yields some unintended and undesirable effects. We argue that software, understood as type, may misfunction in some limited sense, but cannot dysfunction. Accordingly, one should distinguish software from other technical artefacts, in view of their design that makes dysfunction impossible for the former, while possible for the latter.
Keywords Artefact Design Dysfunction Function Misfunction Software
References Angius, N. (2013). Abstraction and Idealization in the formal verification of software systems.
Minds and Machines ,
23 (2), 211–226.
CrossRef Google Scholar Angius, N. (2014). The problem of justification of empirical hypotheses in software testing.
Philosophy and Technology, 27 , 423–439. doi:
10.1007/s13347-014-0159-6 .
Berry, M. D. (2011).
The philosophy of software: Code and mediation in the digital age . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
CrossRef Google Scholar Colburn, T. (1998). Information modelling aspects of software development.
Minds and Machines ,
8 (3), 375–393.
CrossRef Google Scholar Colburn, T. (1999). Software, abstraction and ontology.
The Monist ,
82 (1), 3–19.
CrossRef Google Scholar Colburn, T., & Shute, G. (2007). Abstraction in computer science.
Minds and Machines ,
17 (2), 169–184.
CrossRef Google Scholar Davies, P. S. (2000a). Malfunctions.
Biology and Philosophy ,
15 (1), 19–38.
CrossRef Google Scholar Davies, P. S. (2000b). The nature of natural norms: Why selected functions are systemic capacity functions.
Noûs ,
34 (1), 85–107.
CrossRef Google Scholar Fetzer, J. (1999). The role of models in computer science.
The Monist ,
82 , 20–36.
CrossRef Google Scholar Floridi, L. (2011). The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artefacts.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ,
37 , 42–57.
CrossRef Google Scholar Fresco, N., & Primiero, G. (2013). Miscomputation.
Philosophy and Technology, 26 , 253–272. doi:
10.1007/s13347-013-0112-0 .
Gotterbarn, D. (1998). The uniqueness of software errors and their impact on global policy.
Science and Engineering Ethics ,
4 (3), 351–356.
CrossRef Google Scholar Gruner, S. (2011). Problems for a philosophy of Software Engineering.
Minds and Machines ,
21 (2), 275–299.
CrossRef Google Scholar Hansson, S. O. (2006). Defining technical function.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ,
37 (1), 19–22.
CrossRef Google Scholar Hodges, W. (1993). The meaning of specifications II: Set-theoretic specification, Semantics of Programming Languages and Model Theory, ed. Droste and Gurevich, Gordon and Breach, Yverdon , 1993 , 43–68.
Hodges, W. (1995). The meaning of specifications I: Initial models.
Theoretical Computer Science ,
152 , 67–89.
CrossRef Google Scholar Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010).
Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts . Dordrecht: Springer.
CrossRef Google Scholar Hughes, J. (2009). An artifact is to use: An introduction to instrumental functions. Synthese , 168 (1), 179–199.
Irmak, N. (2012). Software is an abstract artifact.
Grazer Philosophische Studien ,
86 (1), 55–72.
Google Scholar Jespersen, B., & Carrara, M. (2011). Two conceptions of technical malfunction.
Theoria ,
77 (2), 117–138.
CrossRef Google Scholar Kirchner, H., & Mosses, P. (2001). Algebraic specifications, higher-order types and set-theoretic models.
Journal of Logic and Computation ,
11 , 453–481.
CrossRef Google Scholar Millikan, R. G. (1989). In defense of proper functions.
Philosophy of Science ,
56 (2), 288–302.
CrossRef Google Scholar Neander, K. (1995). Misrepresenting & malfunctioning.
Philosophical Studies ,
79 (2), 109–141.
CrossRef Google Scholar Neander, K. (2004). Teleological theories of mental content. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (2012 Ed.).
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/content-teleological .
Northover, M., Kourie, D. G., Boake, A., Gruner, S., & Northover, A. (2008). Towards a philosophy of software development: 40 Years after the birth of software engineering.
Journal for General Philosophy of Science ,
39 (1), 85–113.
CrossRef Google Scholar Preston, B. (2000). The functions of things: A philosophical perspective on material culture. In P. G. Brown (Ed.),
Matter, materiality and modern culture (pp. 22–49). London: Routledge.
Google Scholar Radder, H. (2009). Why technologies are inherently normative. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences . Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 9, pp. 887–921). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Schiaffonati, V., & Verdicchio, M. (2014). Computing and experiments: A methodological view on the debate on the scientific nature of computing.
Philosophy and Technology . doi:
10.1007/s13347-013-0126-7 .
Suber, P. (1988). What is software.
Journal of Speculative Philosophy ,
2 (2), 89–119.
Google Scholar Symons, J. (2008). Computational models of emergent properties.
Minds and Machines ,
18 (4), 475–491.
CrossRef Google Scholar Symons, J., & Boschetti, F. (2013). How computational models predict the behavior of complex systems.
Foundations of Science ,
18 (4), 809–821.
CrossRef Google Scholar Turner, R. (2005). The foundations of specification.
Journal of Logic and Computation ,
15 , 623–662.
CrossRef Google Scholar Turner, R. (2011). Specification.
Minds and Machines ,
21 (2), 135–152.
CrossRef Google Scholar Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it : Analytical studies from aeronautical history. In Johns Hopkins studies in the history of technology . New Series No. 11. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Winsberg, E. (1999). Sanctioning models: The epistemology of simulation.
Science in Context ,
12 (2), 275–292.
CrossRef Google Scholar Wright, L. (1973). Functions.
Philosophical Review ,
82 (2), 139–168.
CrossRef Google Scholar © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Authors and Affiliations 1. Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford Oxford UK 2. Sidney M. Edelstein Centre The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel 3. Department of Computer Science Middlesex University London UK