, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp 303–354

Self-re-Production and Functionality

  • Gerhard Schlosser


Function and teleology can be naturalized either by reference to systems with a particular type of organization (organizational views) or by reference to a particular kind of history (etiological views). As functions are generally ascribed to states or traits according to their current role and regardless of their origin, etiological accounts are inappropriate. Here, I offer a systems-theoretical interpretation as a new version of an organizational account of functionality, which is more comprehensive than traditional cybernetic views and provides explicit criteria for empirically testable function ascriptions. I propose, that functional states, traits or items are those components of a complex system, which are under certain circumstances necessary for their self-re-production. I show, how this notion can be applied in intra- and trans-generational function ascriptions in biology, how it can deal with the problems of multifunctionality and functional equivalents, and how it relates to concepts like fitness and adaptation. Finally, I argue that most intentional explanations can be treated as functional explanations


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amundson, R. and G. V. Lauder: 1994, ‘Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology’, Biology and Philosophy 9, 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayala, F.: 1977, ‘Teleological Explanations’, reprinted in: M. Ruse (ed.), 1989, Philosophy of Biology, Macmillan, New York, pp. 187–192. (Orig.: 1977).Google Scholar
  3. Bekoff, M. and C. Allen: 1995, ‘Teleology, Function, Design and the Evolution of Animal Behaviour’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigelow, J. and R. Pargetter: 1987, ‘Functions’, Journal of Philosophy 84, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bock, W. J.: 1980, ‘The Definition and Recognition of Biological Adaptation’, American Zoologist 20, 217–227.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, W. J. and G. von Wahlert: 1965, ‘Adaptation and the Form-Function Complex’ Evolution 19, 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boorse, C.: 1976, ‘Wright on Functions’, The Philosophical Review 85, 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, R.: 1960, Scientific Explanation, Harper, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Chambon, P.: 1993, ‘The Molecular and Genetic Dissection of the Retinoid Signalling Pathway’, Gene 135, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, W.: 1996, ‘A Complex Systems Theory of Teleology’, Biology and Philosophy 11, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coveney, P. and R. Highfield: 1995, Frontiers of Complexity, Fawcett Columbine, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, R.: 1975, ‘Functional Analysis’, Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummins, R.: 1983, The Nature of Psychological Explanation, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Ehring, D.: 1985, ‘Dispositions and Functions: Cummins on Functional Analysis’, Erkenntnis 23, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eigen, M., W. Gardiner, P. Schuster and R. Winkler-Oswatitsch: 1981, ‘The Origin of Genetic Information’, Scientific American 244/4, 88–118.Google Scholar
  16. Fietz, M. J., J.-P. Concordet, R. Barbosa, R. Johnson, S. Krauss, A. P. McMahon, C. Tabin and P. W. Ingham: 1994, ‘The Hedgehog Gene Family in Drosophila and Vertebrate Development’, Development 1994Suppl. 43–51.Google Scholar
  17. Godfrey-Smith, P.: 1994, ‘A Modern History Theory of Functions’, Nous 28, 355–362.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, L. J.: 1962, ‘Recurrent Structures and Teleology’, Inquiry 5, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould, S. J.: 1980, ‘Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?’, Paleobiology 6, 119–130.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, S. J. and R. C. Lewontin: 1979, ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm’, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 205 (1979), 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gould, S. J. and E. S. Vrba: 1982, ‘Exaptation — A Missing Term in the Science of Form’, Paleobiology 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
  22. Griffiths, P. E.: 1993, ‘Functional Analysis and Proper Functions’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44, 409–422.Google Scholar
  23. Hausman, D. B.: 1985, ‘The Explanation of Goal-Directed Behavior’, Synthese 65, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hempel, C. G.: 1959, ‘Functional Analysis’, reprinted in: C. G. Hempel, 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, The Free Press, New York, 279–330.Google Scholar
  25. Horan, B. L.: 1989, ‘Functional Explanations in Sociobiology’, Biology and Philosophy 4, 131–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitcher, P.: 1993, ‘Function and Design’, in: P. A. French, T. E. Uehling, Jr. and H. K. Wettstein (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 379–397.Google Scholar
  27. Lauder, G. V., A. M. Levoi and M. R. Rose: 1993, ‘Adaptations and History’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewontin, R. C.: 1978, ‘Adaptation’, Scientific American 239/3, 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manning, R. N.: 1997, ‘Biological Function, Selection, and Reduction’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maynard Smith, J.: 1983, ‘Evolution and Development’, in: B. C. Goodwin, N. Holder and L. C. Wylie (eds.): Development and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 33–45.Google Scholar
  31. Mayr, E.: 1988, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Millikan, R. G.: 1984, Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Millikan, R G.: 1989, ‘In Defense of Proper Functions’, Philosophy of Science 56, 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell, S. D.: 1995, ‘Function, Fitness and Disposition’, Biology and Philosophy 10, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagel, E.: 1961, The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  36. Nagel, E.: 1979, ‘Teleology Revisited’, Journal of Philosophy 74, 261–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neander, K.: 1991a, ‘Functions as Selected Affects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense’, Philosophy of Sciences 8, 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neander, K.: 1991b, ‘The Teleological Notion of Function’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69, 454–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pettit, P.: 1996, ‘Functional Explanation and Virtual Selection’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reeve, H. K. and P. W. Sherman: 1993, ‘Adaptation and the Goals of Evolutionary Research’, The Quarterly Review of Biology 68, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ridley, M.: 1993, Evolution, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston.Google Scholar
  42. Rosenberg, A.: 1985, The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenblueth, A., N. Wiener and J. Bigelow: 1943, ‘Behavior, Purpose and Teleology’, Philosophy of Science 10, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  45. Schaffner, K. F.: 1993, Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  46. Schlosser, G.: 1993, Einheit der Welt und Einheitswissenschaft. Grundlegung einer Allgemeinen Systemtheorie, Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  47. Schlosser, G.: 1996, ‘Der Organismus — eine Fiktion?’, in: H. J. Rheinberger and M. Weingarten (eds.), Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie III, Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, Berlin, pp. 75–92.Google Scholar
  48. Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. Sober, E.: 1993, Philosophy of Biology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  50. Stegmüller, W.: 1969, Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und Begründung. Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und analytischen Philosophie 1, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  51. Tautz, D.: 1992, ‘Redundancies, Development and the Flow of Information’, BioEssays 14, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sommerhoff, G.: 1950, Analytical Biology, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  53. Walsh, D. M.: 1996, ‘Fitness and Function’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wimsatt, W. C.: 1972, ‘Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 3, 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wright, L.: 1972, ‘Explanation and Teleology’, Philosophy of Science 39, 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright, L.: 1976, Teleological Explanations, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Schlosser
    • 1
  1. 1.Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg Lehmkuhlen-buschDelmenhorstGermany

Personalised recommendations