Abstract
It is a plain fact that biology makes use of terms and expressions commonly spoken of as teleological. Biologists frequently speak of the function of biological items. They may also say that traits are ‘supposed to’ perform some of their effects, claim that traits are ‘for’ specific effects, or that organisms have particular traits ‘in order to’ engage in specific interactions. There is general agreement that there must be something useful about this linguistic practice but it is controversial whether it is entirely appropriate, and if so why it is.Many theorists have defended the use of seemingly teleological terms by appeal to an etiological notion of function (Wright, 1973; Millikan, 1984, 2002; Neander, 1991; Griffiths, 1993; Godfrey-Smith, 1994; and Buller, 1999). According to the etiological notion, attributing a function to a trait is a matter of pointing to effects that account for why the trait has been selected for.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. A Critique of Current Philosophy of Biology;History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences;2024
2. On Ernest Nagel on Teleology in Biology;Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science;2021-09-22
3. Proper-Function Moral Realism;European Journal of Philosophy;2017-07-10
4. Whose purposes? Biological teleology and intentionality;Synthese;2017-05-11
5. Sex, Biological Functions and Social Norms: A Simple Constructivist Theory of Sex;NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research;2016-01-02