La heterogeneidad de criterios para la atribución funcional. Estudio de un caso

Andrea Olmos

Resumen


ABSTRACT. HETEROGENEITY OF CRITERIA USED FOR FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTION. A CASE STUDY.

The philosophical discussion around the concept of function led to the formulation of various definitions in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. In this paper, I evaluate the adequacy of the most prominent philosophical proposals based on the evidence used for the attribution of functions in a case study of behavioral biology, and show how each proposed definition only partially accounts for the evidence appealed in this case. Considering these results, I suggest that the heterogeneity of criteria used for functional attribution could be symptomatic for the need to treat ‘function’ as a theoretical concept, based on the criteria of determination, and not on a definition in terms of necessary or sufficient conditions.

 

KEY WORDS. Functional attribution, systemic approach, etiological approach, fitness contribution approach, theoretical concept, definition, criteria of determination.

 


Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Alexander, R. D. (1957), “Sound production and associated behavior in insects”. The Ohio Journal of Science, 57(2): 101–113. https://doi.org/hdl.handle.net/1811/4430

Alexander, R. D. (1960), “Sound communication in Orthoptera and Cicadidae”. En W. Lanyon & R. Tavolga (Eds.), Animal Sounds and Communication (pp. 38-92), New York: AIBS Publications.

Alexander, R. D. (1961), “Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae”. Behaviour 17(2): 130-223.

Alexander, R. D. (1962), “Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication”. Source: Evolution. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/2406178

Alexander, R. D. (1967), “Acoustical communication in arthropods”. Annual Review of Entomology 12: 495-526.

Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. V. (1994), “Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology”. Biology & Philosophy 9: 443-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00850375

Barberis, S. D. (2012), “Un análisis crítico de la concepción mecanicista de la explicación”. Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía XXXVIII(2): 233-265.

Beatty, J. (1980), “Optimal-design models and the strategy of model building in evolutionary biology”. Philosophy of Science 47(4): 532-561.

Bell, P. (1979), “Acoustic attraction of herons by crickets”. New York Entomological Society, LXXXVII(2): 126-127.

Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1987), “Functions”. The Journal of Philosophy 84(4): 181-196.

Bolduc, J. S., & Cézilly, F. (2012), “Optimality modelling in the real world”. Biology and Philosophy 27: 851-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9333-3

Brandon, R., & Beatty, J. (1984), “The propensity interpretation of fitness no interpretation is no substitute”. Philosophy of Science 51(2): 342-347.

Buller, D. J. (1998), “Etiological theories of function: a geographical survey”. Biology and Philosophy 13, 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006559512367

Cade, W. (1975), “Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song”. Science 190(4221), 1312-1313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4221.1312 Caponi, G. (2010), “Análisis funcionales y explicaciones seleccionales en biología. Una crítica de la concepción etiológica del concepto de función”. Ideas y Valores 59(143): 51-72.

Craver, C. (2001), “Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy”, Philosophy of Science 68 (1): 53-74.

Craver, C. (2007), Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cummins, R. (1975), “Functional analysis”. Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–764.

Cummins, R. (1983), The Nature of Psychological Explanation. (The MIT Press, Ed.), Cambridge.

Davies, P. S. (2001), Norms of Nature. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Drummond, H. (1981), “The nature and description of behavior patterns”. En P. P. G. Bateson & P. H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in Ethology: Advantages of Diversity. New York: Plenum Press.

Duijm, M., & van Oyen, T. (1948), “Het sjirpen van da zadelsprinkhaan”. De Levende Natuur 51(6): 81-87.

Garson, J. (2016), “A generalized selected effects theory of function”. Philosophy of Science 84, 523-543.

Garson, J. (2017), “How to be a function pluralist”. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69, 4: 1101-1122. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx007

Ginnobili, S. (2009), “Adaptacion y función: El papel de los conceptos funcionales en la teoría de la selección natural darwiniana”. Ludus Vitalis XVII (31): 3-24.

Ginnobili, S. (2011), “Función como concepto teórico”. Scientiae Studia: Revista Latino-Americana de Filosofia e História da Ciência 9(4): 847-880. Recuperado a partir de http://ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL2183802&site=ehostlive&scope=site Ginnobili, S. (2013), “Fitness ecológico”. Contrastes 18, 83-97.

Ginnobili, S., & Roffé, A. (2017), “Dos usos de los modelos de optimalidad en las explicaciones por selección natural”. Metatheoria 8(1): 43-55.

Godfrey-Smith, P. (1993), “Functions: consensus without unity”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74, 196-208. Recuperado a partir de http://petergodfreysmith. com/PGSFunctions1993PPQ.pdf Godfrey-Smith, P. (1994), “A modern history theory of functions”. Noûs 28: 344-362.

Hempel, C. G. (1979), La explicación científica: Estudios sobre la filosofía de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Horan, B. L. (1989), “Functional explanations in sociobiology”. Biology and Philosophy 4: 131–158.

Kuhn, T. (2006), La estructura de las revoluciones científicas (3a ed.), México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000), “Thinking about mechanisms”. Philosophy of Science 67(1): 1-25.

McNamara, J. M., Houston, a. I., & Collins, E. J. (2001), “Optimality models in behavioral biology”. SIAM Review 43(3): 413-466. https://doi.org/10.1137/ S0036144500385263 Millikan, R. G. (1984), Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, Massachussetts: MIT Press.

Millikan, R. G. (1989), “An ambiguity in the notion “function”. Biology and Philosophy 4, 172-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127747

Mills, K., & Beatty, J. H. (1979), “The propensity interpretation of fitness”. Philosophy of Science 46(2): 263-286.

Millstein, R. L. (2016), “Probability in biology: the case of fitness”. En A. Hájek & C. R. Hitchcock (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199607617.001.0001

Mitchell, S. D. (1995), “Function, fitness and disposition”. Biology and Philosophy, 10: 39-54.

Neander, K. (1991a), “Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense”. Philosophy of Science 58(2): 168-184.

Neander, K. (1991b), “The teleological notion of “function”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69(4): 454-468.

Orzack, S. H., & Sober, E. (1994a), “How (not) to test an optimality model”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (7), 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/01695347(94)90296-8

Orzack, S. H., & Sober, E. (1994b), “Optimality models and the test of adaptationism”. The American Naturalist 143(3): 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1086/285608

Parker, G. a., & Smith, J. M. (1990), “Optimality theory in evolutionary biology”. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/348027a0

Potochnik, A. (2009), “Optimality modeling in a suboptimal world”. Biology and Philosophy 24: 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-008-9143-9 Regen, J. (1913), “Ober die Anlockung des Weibchens von Gryllus campestris L. durch telephonisch übertragene Stridulationslaute des Männchens”. Pflügers Archiv für die Gesammte Physiologie, 155: 193-200.

Rice, C. (2012), “Optimality explanatins: A plea for an alternative approach”. Biology and Philosophy 27: 685-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9322-6

Rosenberg, A., & Bouchard, F. (2009), “Fitness”. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Saborido, C. (2014), “New directions in the philosophy of biology: A New Taxonomy of Functions”. En M. C. Galavotti, D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel, & M. Weber (Eds.), New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1

Sakaluk, S. K., & Belwood, J. J. (1984), “Gecko phonotaxis to cricket calling song:

A case of satellite predation”. Animal Behaviour 32(3): 659-662. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0003-3472(84)80141-4

Tinbergen, N. (1963),”On aims and methods of ethology”. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20: 410-433.

Walker, T. (1957), “Specificity in the response of female tree crickets (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Oecanthinae) to calling songs of the males”, 50 Annals Entomological Society of America.

Walker, T. (1964), “Experimental demonstration of a cat locating orthopteran prey by the prey’s calling song”. The Florida Entomologist 47(2): 163-165.

Walsh, D. M. (1996), “Fitness and function”. British Journal of Philosophical Science, 47, 553-574.

Wouters, A. (2005), “The function debate in philosophy”. Acta 53, 123-151.

Wright, L. (1973), “Functions”. Philosophical Review 82(2): 139-168.

Wright, L. (1976), Teleological Explanations: An Etiological Analysis of Goals and Functions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Revista semestral editada por el Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos
y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano de la Secretaría de Educación Pública,
la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa y Edicions UIB de la Universitat de les Illes Balears.

Lombardo Toledano 51, Col. Ex-Hda. Guadalupe Chimalistac,
Del. Alvaro Obregón, C.P. 01050, México, D.F.
Tels. (5255) 5661-4679 y 5661-4987
Fax: (5255) 5661-1787