Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology 0199255814, 9780199255818

Citation preview

7■

9 p-—ca = i„ the reabsorbtion of

XSS*'-'-'-^^SX)of»»“S"a'deW'0’”

^.edification (by natural se as a remnant and meIn other words, iKOTtsaKdenveJa„d„wJ;ficJ(n,mlhCuaUs.>( mental pattern. 1 dst): Organi H (evolution’

better explains

of

H (creationist). Each p Let us take stock of the impor^

independent act of creation.

Darwin’s answer to Paley’s argument for his Anstotehan teleology is an entirely □ether. Platonic teleo vestigial and odd arrangements’ suggests that different sort. EvidenCderived from a purposeful act of creation but rather oroanic traits are not modified from the traits of their ancestors organic traits are der^ is> Darwin replaces the hand of creation with 'a nowntt’1'0”’1

Ideological ‘force’! I see remnants of two sorts of

How is„n,r«n. The key to seeing both is within Darwin's conteleologV ' ’ i0„, Which can be summed up as follows: as a result of cent ol na,uta afferent heritable abilities striving t0 survive and individuals P«^ranments, comes an explanation for changes tn trait reproduce in 10."Lal,ons through time. Trans become prevalent in popula°‘S are useful to orgamsms m then struggle to survive. »»“ bKi"; ,Xl«le°* 15 P"S"f", thT,8h W« that an items Aristotle's * taiued in terms of ns usefulness (Le„„ox "

-ss imman

3. Ten Leading Objections I shall now answer ten of what seem to me the dozen best challenges to a GGC account of function. Although some of these objections were posed against other types of analysis, since they affect a GGC account equally, I will reply. Most of them can apply to all GGC analyses, and often S&R analyses too. But some are specific objections to my own statistical species-relative account of biomedical normality. 3.1. Arbitrary, Evaluative, or Circular Goal-Choice

Both Melander and Schaffner charge that the GGC approach has no naturalis­ tic way to identity the goals of organisms, but instead requires the theorist to choose them arbitrarily or evaluatively. Melander (1997: 32-4), adapting Nagel’s example, imagines that a person’s kidneys and muscles reset the target they maintain for blood water content at Similarly, Neander (forthcoming: 53 n. 13) says: ‘Since there is no selection without varia­ tion, a trail that has no competition will not be selected for anything in the future (until an alter­ native allele arises)’. Millikan’s argument (1989fc 174) that Bigelow and Pargetter’s account is incoherent is, however, unconvincing. 17 Thanks to Michael Rea for this concise summan’.