Biology’s Functional Perspective: Roles, Advantages and Organization

  • Arno G. Wouters
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 1)


This chapter discusses biology’s functional perspective: what it amounts to, why it is essential and how it differs from our everyday intuitions. Using an explanation of the emperor penguin’s two-voice system as an example, I outline the main characteristics of the functional approach: it views organisms as solutions to the problem to stay alive, it uses role functions to explain how organisms solve this problem, and explains an organism’s features by pointing to the advantages of these features in solving the problems of life. Such an approach is justified because the very existence of organisms depends on their ability to solve these problems and because this ability critically depends on the characteristics of the organism’s parts, their arrangement, and the order and timing of their activities. The functional perspective is the biologist’s way to take this organization into account. However, to deal with the problem of how organization and adaptation come about, pre-Darwinian functional biologists thought of functions not merely as roles in an organization, but as the purposes for which the parts and activities of an organism are generated. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection abolished the need to explain adaptation and, hence, the need for a teleological interpretation of the functional perspective. Functional explanations differ from evolutionary explanations in their concern with individual level relations (evolutionary explanations are population level explanations), and from both teleological and evolutionary explanations in their concern with what is needed to stay alive as opposed to how traits come about. Finally, I explain how the functional approach in biology differs from our intuitions about function by comparing functional reasoning in biology with the teleological notion of function developed by naturalistic philosophers at the end of the twentieth century. This construct is firmly grounded in evolutionary theory and accounts for the intuitions that functions are explanatory, normative and teleological, but doesn’t fit with the way in which biologists reason about function.


Individual Recognition Functional Explanation Average Neck Emperor Penguin Function Attribution 
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.


  1. Alcock, John. 1975. Animal behavior. An evolutionary approach. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  2. Amundson, Ron, and George V. Lauder. 1994. Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy 9: 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonovics, Janis. 1987. The evolutionary dys-synthesis: Which bottles for which wine? American Naturalist 129(3): 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ariew, André. 2003. Ernst Mayr’s ultimate/proximate distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy 18(4): 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong, Doug P. 1991. Levels of cause and effect as organizing principles for research in animal behaviour. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 823–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aubin, Thierry, Pierre Jouventin, and Christophe Hildebrand. 2000. Penguins use the two-voice system to recognize each other. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267(1448): 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardapurkar, Abhijeet. 2008. Do students see the “Selection” in organic evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach 1: 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bigelow, John, and Robert Pargetter. 1987. Functions. Journal of Philosophy 84(4): 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boorse, Christopher. 1976. Wright on functions. Philosophical Review 85(1): 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandon, Robert N. 1990. Adaptation and environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, Daniel R., and Deborah A. McLennan. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology and behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Buller, David J. 1998. Etiological theories of function: A geographical survey. Biology and Philosophy 13: 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canfield, John V. 1964. Teleological explanation in biology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14(56): 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canfield, John V. 1965. Teleological explanation in biology: A reply. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15(60): 327–331.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, Wayne, and Mark H. Bickhard. 2002. The process dynamics of normative function. The Monist 85(1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coddington, Jonathan A. 1988. Cladistic tests of adaptational hypothesis. Cladistics 4: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craver, Carl F. 2001. Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science 68: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummins, Robert. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72(20): 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummins, Robert. 2002. Neo-teleology. In Functions, ed. André Ariew, Robert Cummins, and Mark Perlman, 157–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, Paul Sheldon. 2001. Norms of nature. Naturalism and the nature of functions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Delancey, Craig. 2006. Ontology and teleofunctions: A defense and revision of the systematic account of teleological explanation. Synthese 150(1): 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dewsbury, Donald A. 1992. On the problems studied in ethology, comparative psychology, and animal behavior. Ethology 92(2): 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dewsbury, Donald A. 1994. On the utility of the proximate-ultimate distinction in the study of animal behavior. Ethology 96(1): 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dewsbury, Donald A. 1999. The proximate and the ultimate: Past, present, and future. Behavioural Processes 46(3): 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dullemeijer, Peter. 1974. Concepts and approaches in animal morphology. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  27. Fisher, Ronald A. 1930. The genetic theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  28. Francis, Richard C. 1990. Causes, proximate and ultimate. Biology and Philosophy 5(4): 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frankfurt, Harry G., and Brian Poole. 1966. Functional analyses in biology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17: 69–72.Google Scholar
  30. Galli, Leonardo González, and Elsa Meinardi. 2011. The role of teleological thinking in learning the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach 4: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garson, Justin. 2008. Function and teleology. In A companion to the philosophy of biology, ed. Sahotra Sarkar and Anya Plutynski, 525–549. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Garson, Justin. 2011. Selected effects and causal role functions in the brain: The case for an etiological approach to neuroscience. Biology and Philosophy 26(4): 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 1994. A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28(3): 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gould, Stephen Jay, and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenewalt, Crawford H. 1968. Bird song: Acoustics and physiology. Washington, TN: Smithonian Institute Press.Google Scholar
  36. Griffiths, Paul E. 1993. Functional analysis and proper functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44(3): 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harvey, Paul H., and Mark D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hempel, Carl G. 1959. The logic of functional analysis. In Symposium on sociological theory, ed. L. Gross, 271–287. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  39. Horan, Barbara L. 1989. Functional explanations in sociobiology. Biology and Philosophy 4: 131–158, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huxley, Julian L. 1942. Evolution: The modern synthesis. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  41. Kampourakis, Kostas. 2007. Teleology in biology, chemistry and physics education. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education 1(2): 81–93.Google Scholar
  42. Kampourakis, Kostas. 2013. Teaching about adaptation: Why evolutionary history matters. Science & Education 22(2): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kant, Immanuel. 1790. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin: Lagarde und Friederich.Google Scholar
  44. Kitcher, Philip. 1985. Darwin’s achievement. In Reason and rationality in natural science, ed. Nicholas Rescher, 127–190. Lantham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  45. Kitcher, Philip. 1993. Function and design. In Philosophy of science, ed. Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling, and Howard K. Wettstein, 379–397. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lenoir, Timothy. 1982. The strategy of life. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  47. Lewens, Tim. 2004. Organisms and artifacts: Design in nature and elsewhere. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lewontin, Richard C. 1981. The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 118: 65–82.Google Scholar
  49. Loeb, Jacques. 1916. The organism as a whole. New York: Putnam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mayr, Ernst. 1961. Cause and effect in biology. Science 134: 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McLaughlin, Peter. 2001. What functions explain. Functional explanation and self-reproducing systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1989a. An ambiguity in the notion “function”. Biology and Philosophy 4(2): 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1989b. In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science 56(2): 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1993. Propensities, exaptations, and the brain. In White Queen psychology and other essays for Alice, 31–50. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mitchell, Sandra D. 1989. The causal background of functional explanation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 3: 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mitchell, Sandra D. 1993. Dispositions or etiologies? A comment on Bigelow and Pargetter. Journal of Philosophy 90(5): 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mitchell, Sandra D. 1995. Function, fitness and disposition. Biology and Philosophy 10: 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mossio, Matteo, Cristian Saborido, and Alvaro Moreno. 2009. An organizational account of biological functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(4): 813–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Neander, Karen. 1980. Teleology in biology. Paper presented to the AAP conference in 1980.Google Scholar
  61. Neander, Karen. 1983. Abnormal psychobiology. Ph.D. thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  62. Neander, Karen. 1991a. Function as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science 58(2): 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Neander, Karen. 1991b. The teleological notion of ‘function’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69(4): 454–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order out of chaos. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  65. Reeve, Hudson Kern, and Paul W. Sherman. 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. The Quarterly Review of Biology 68: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reiss, John O. 2005. Natural selection and the conditions for existence: Representational vs. conditional teleology in biological explanation. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 27(2): 249–280.Google Scholar
  67. Reiss, John O. 2009. Not by design: Retiring Darwin’s watchmaker. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  68. Ruse, Michael. 1971. Functional statements in biology. Philosophy of Science 38: 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Saborido, Cristian, Matteo Mossio, and Alvaro Moreno. 2011. Biological organization and cross-generation functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62(3): 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Salmon, Wesley C. 1989. Four decades of scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  71. Schlosser, Gerhard. 1998. Self re-production and functionality: A systems-theoretical approach to teleological explanation. Synthese 116(3): 303–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwartz, Peter H. 1999. Proper function and recent selection. Philosophy of Science 66: S210–S222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schwartz, Peter H. 2002. The continuing usefulness account of proper function. In Functions, ed. André Ariew, Robert Cummins, and Mark Perlman, 244–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sober, Elliott. 1983. Equilibrium explanation. Philosophical Studies 43: 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sober, Elliott. 1984. The nature of selection. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Stein, Robert Carrington. 1968. Modulation in bird sounds. The Auk 85: 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sturdy, Christopher B., and Richard Mooney. 2000. Two voices are better than one. Current Biology 10(17): R634–R636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thierry, Bernard. 2005. Integrating proximate and ultimate causation: Just one more go! Current Science 89(7): 1180–1183.Google Scholar
  79. Tinbergen, Niko. 1963. On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20: 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walsh, Denis M. 1996. Fitness and function. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wimsatt, William C. 1972. Teleology and the logical structure of function statements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3: 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wimsatt, William C. 1986. Forms of aggregativity. In Human nature and natural knowledge, ed. Donagan Alan, N.Perovich Anthony Jr., and V.Wedin Michael, 259–291. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wimsatt, William C. 1997. Aggregativity: Reductive heuristics for finding emergence. Philosophy of Science 64: S372–S384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Wouters, Arno G. 1995. Viability explanation. Biology and Philosophy 10(4): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wouters, Arno G. 1999. Explanation without a cause. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  87. Wouters, Arno G. 2003. Four notions of biological function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Science 34(4): 633–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wouters, Arno G. 2005a. The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica 53(2): 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wouters, Arno G. 2005b. Functional explanation in biology. In Cognitive structures in scientific inquiry, Essays in debate with Theo Kuipers, vol. 2, ed. Festa Roberto, Aliseda Atocha, and Peijnenburg Jeanne, 269–293. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  90. Wouters, Arno G. 2005c. The functional perspective of organismal biology. In Current themes in theoretical biology, ed. Thomas A.C. Reydon and Lia Hemerik, 33–69. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wouters, Arno G. 2007. Design explanation: Determining the constraints on what can be alive. Erkenntnis 67(1): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wright, Larry. 1972. Explanation and teleology. Philosophy of Science 39(2): 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations