There Are No Ahistorical Theories of Function

Philosophy of Science 86 (5):1146-1156 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Theories of function are conventionally divided up into historical and ahistorical ones. Proponents of ahistorical theories often cite the ahistoricity of their accounts as a major virtue. Here, I argue that none of the mainstream “ahistorical” accounts are actually ahistorical. All of them embed, implicitly or explicitly, an appeal to history. In Boorse’s goal-contribution account, history is latent in the idea of statistical-typicality. In the propensity theory, history is implicit in the idea of a species’ natural habitat. In the causal role theory, history is required for making sense of dysfunction. I elaborate some consequences for the functions debate.
Reprint years
2018
PhilPapers/Archive ID
GARTAN-3
Upload history
First archival date: 2018-11-11
Latest version: 3 (2019-01-23)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2018-07-25

Total views
105 ( #44,429 of 2,454,402 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #45,665 of 2,454,402 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.