Modality and Function: Reply to Nanay

Journal of Mind and Behavior 32 (2):89-90 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
This paper replies to Nanay’s response to my recent paper. My suggestions are the following. First, “should” or “ought” does not need to be deontic. Second, etiological theories of function, like provability logic, do not need to attribute modal force to their explanans. Third, the explanans of the homological account of trait type individuation does not appeal to a trait’s etiological function, that is, what a trait should or ought to do. Finally, my reference to Cummins’s notion of function was intended to note that the homological account is permitted to use this non-etiological notion of function.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KIRMAF
Upload history
First archival date: 2011-09-01
Latest version: 3 (2011-11-22)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2011-09-01

Total views
312 ( #22,398 of 65,770 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #52,235 of 65,770 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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