Functions, Malfunctioning, and Negative Causation

Chapter
Part of the European Studies in Philosophy of Science book series (ESPS, volume 9)

Abstract

Functional explanations apply not only in cases of normal functioning, but also in the case of malfunctioning. According to a straightforward analysis, a bearer of the function to F is malfunctioning if and only if it does not F although it should do so. This makes malfunctions and malfunctionings analogous to negative causation and thus peculiarly problematic, because they seem to involve absent dispositions and absent processes. This analysis seems also to require that the function to F cannot be identical with the disposition to F. Then we seem to be trapped in a dilemma: Either the realm of functions is separated from the realm of dispositions; then it seems that functions cannot be causally efficacious. Alternatively, functions are considered to be identical with dispositions; but then malfunctioning seems to be conceptually impossible. The paper defends and further develops the thesis of Röhl and Jansen (J Biomed Semant 5:27, 2014) that functions are not a special type of dispositions. For this purpose, it first reviews different varieties of malfunction and malfunctioning and suggests definitions of both malfunction and malfunctioning. It reviews how causal, etiological and intentional theories of functions can deal with these problems. In particular, the paper discusses the special-disposition account of the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). Spear, Ceusters and Smith (Applied Ontology 11(2):103--128, 2016) have defended the special-disposition account of the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) by suggesting various strategies how a special-disposition account can deal with malfunctions. On the one side, the paper evaluates these strategies and indicates several problems arising from them. On the other hand, it describes how to account for the non-optionality and the causal efficacy of functions, if functions are not dispositions. While function types are not identical to disposition types, there are important interrelations between functions and dispositions, namely (1) heuristically, (2) from a design perspective for artefact functions, and (3) from an evolutionary perspective for types of biological functions.

Keywords

Function Disposition Malfunction Negative causation Contrastive explanation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Werner Ceusters, Manfred Drack, Georg Fuellen, Niels Grewe, Ulrich Krohs, Johannes Röhl, Petter Sandstad, Barry Smith and Andrew Spear for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. Arp, R., B. Smith, and A.D. Spear. 2015. Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artiga, M. 2011. Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Applied Ontology 6: 105–124.Google Scholar
  3. Baader, F., et al. 2007. The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, L.R. 2007. The metaphysics of everyday life: An essay in practical realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bentridi, S.-E., B. Gall, F. Gauthier-Lafaye, A. Seghour, and D.-E. Medjadi. 2011. Inception and evolution of Oklo natural reactors. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 343(11–12): 738–748.Google Scholar
  6. Birnbacher, D., and D. Hommen. 2012. Negative Kausalität. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burek, P. 2006. Ontology of functions: A domain-independent framework for modeling functions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leipzig. http://www.onto-med.de/publications/2007/burek-p-2007-a.pdf
  8. Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of philosophy 72: 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. del Frate, L. 2012. Preliminaries to a formal ontology of failure of engineering artifacts. In Formal ontologies in information systems (FOIS 2012), ed. M. Donnelly and G. Guizzardi, 117–132. Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
  10. Godfrey-Smith, P. 1994. A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28: 344–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldschmidt, T. 2016. A demonstration of the causal power of absences. Dialectica 70: 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart, H.L.A., and A.M. Honoré. 1959. Causation in the law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Houkes, W., and P. Vermaas. 2010. Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Houkes, W., P. Vermaas, K. Dorst, and M.J. de Vries. 2002. Design and use as plans: An action-theoretical account. Design Studies 23: 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jansen, L. 2008. Kategorien: Die top level Ontologie. In Biomedizinische Ontologie. Wissen strukturieren für die Informatik-Praxis, ed. Ludger Jansen and Barry Smith, 85–112. Zürich: vdf.Google Scholar
  16. Jespersen, B., and M. Carrara. 2011. Two conceptions of malfunction. Theoria 77: 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krohs, U. 2004. Eine Theorie biologischer Theorien: Status und Gehalt von Funktionsaussagen und informationstheoretischen Modellen. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2009. Functions as based on a concept of general design. Synthese 166: 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2010. Dys-, mal- et non-: l’autre face de la fonctionnalité. In Les Fonctions: Des Organismes aux Artefacts, ed. J. Gayon, A. de Ricqlès, and M. Mossio, 337–351. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  20. Laurin, M., M.L. Everett, and W. Parker. 2011. The cecal appendix: One more immune component with a function disturbed by post-industrial culture. The Anatomical Record 294 (4): 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lipton, P. 1990. Contrastive explanations. In Explanations and beyond, ed. Dudley Knowles, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lord, Ph. 2010. An evolutionary approach to functions. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 1 (Suppl~1): S4.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S4.
  23. Merrill, G.H. 2010. Ontological realism: Methodology or misdirection? Applied Ontology 5: 79–108.Google Scholar
  24. Millikan, R.G. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pahl, G., W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K.-H. Grote. 2005. Konstruktionslehre: Grundlagen erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung. Methoden und Anwendung, 6. Auflage. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Preston, B. 2013. A philosophy of material culture: in Action, function, and mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Röhl, J., and L. Jansen. 2014. Why functions are not special dispositions. An improved classification of realizables for top-level ontologies. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 5: 27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Searle, J.R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, B. 2005. Against fantology. In Experience and analysis, ed. Johann C. Marek and Maria E. Reicher, 153–170. Wien: öbv & hpt.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, H.F., W. Parker, S.H. Kotzéd, and M. Laurine. 2017. Morphological evolution of the mammalian cecum and cecal appendix. Comptes Rendu Palevol 16: 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spear, A.D., and B. Smith. 2015. Defining ‘Function’. In Third International Workshop on Definitions in Ontologies (IWOOD 2015). Lisbon. 27 July 2015. https://sites.google.com/site/defsinontos2015/accepted-papers
  32. Spear, A., W. Ceusters, and B. Smith. 2016. Functions in basic formal ontology. Applied Ontology 11 (2): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tinbergen, N. 1963. On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20: 410–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Catholic TheologyRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations