Biological functions, generics, and explanation.

Biological function ascriptions are often thought to present distinctive philosophical puzzles: they screen off a part’s purpose from merely accidental effects of its presence and they provide a certain kind of explanation. I propose a naive, ahistorical account of functions to resolve these puzzles...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 206; no. 1; pp. 1 - 26
Autor principal: Marré, Thomas
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Jul2025
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=186608721&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 186608721
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2025
      vid: 206
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        186608721
        10.1007/s11229-025-05126-z
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 25
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: T
      tig:
        atl: Biological functions, generics, and explanation.
      aug:
        au: Marré, Thomas
        affil: https://ror.org/047yk3s18 The Catholic University of America, School of Philosophy, Washington D.C, USA
      sug:
      keyword:
        Biological functions
        Explanation
        Generics
        Philosophy and Religious Studies Philosophy
        Purpose
        Selected effects
      ab: Biological function ascriptions are often thought to present distinctive philosophical puzzles: they screen off a part’s purpose from merely accidental effects of its presence and they provide a certain kind of explanation. I propose a naive, ahistorical account of functions to resolve these puzzles: the function of a part is what it does. We can help ourselves to this view if we understand function statements as generics. It is, I argue, then their generic form that is responsible for screening off the purpose of a given part from accidental effects. In other words, I take it that one of the problems that function ascriptions are thought to raise is in fact a problem arising from the thorny semantics of the wider class of sentences to which they belong. I then propose a deflationary conception of their explanatory power by distinguishing two often conflated questions: how did a given part come to have the function it has, and what does the function explain. In short, functions have historical explanations but they do not provide historical explanations.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2025. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2025
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N