Functions, Malfunctioning, and Negative Causation
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.
KeywordsFunction Disposition Malfunction Negative causation Contrastive explanation
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.
- Artiga, M. 2011. Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Applied Ontology 6: 105–124.Google Scholar
- Baader, F., et al. 2007. The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Baker, L.R. 2007. The metaphysics of everyday life: An essay in practical realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hart, H.L.A., and A.M. Honoré. 1959. Causation in the law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Houkes, W., and P. Vermaas. 2010. Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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
- ———. 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
- Lipton, P. 1990. Contrastive explanations. In Explanations and beyond, ed. Dudley Knowles, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Merrill, G.H. 2010. Ontological realism: Methodology or misdirection? Applied Ontology 5: 79–108.Google Scholar
- Millikan, R.G. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Preston, B. 2013. A philosophy of material culture: in Action, function, and mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Searle, J.R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, B. 2005. Against fantology. In Experience and analysis, ed. Johann C. Marek and Maria E. Reicher, 153–170. Wien: öbv & hpt.Google Scholar
- 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