In this essay I introduce the question of artifactual functions in the context of the recent debate on the notion of function. I discuss some of the desiderata a satisfactory account should fulfill and compare them to the desiderata for a theory of biological functions. Finally, within this general framework, I briefly present the three papers included in this volume.
Abrams, M. (2005). Teleosemantics without natural selection. Biology and Philosophy, 20(1), 97–116. doi:10.1007/s10539-005-0359-7.
2.
Arp, R. & Smith, B. (2008). Function, role and dispotion in basic formal ontology. Nature Precedings, 1–4.
3.
Arp, R., Smith, B. & Spear, A. (2015). Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Artiga, M. (2011). Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Applied Ontology, 6(2), 105–124.
5.
Artiga, M. (2014). The modal theory of function is not about functions. Philosophy of Science, 81(4), 581–590. doi:10.1086/677952.
6.
Artiga, M. & Martinez, M. (forthcoming). The organisational account of function is an etiological account of function. Acta Biotheoretica.
7.
Ayala, F. (1970). Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology. Philosophy of Science, 37(1), 1–15. doi:10.1086/288276.
8.
Bigelow, J. & Pargetter, R. (1987). Functions. Journal of Philosophy, 84(4), 181–196. doi:10.2307/2027157.
9.
Buller, D. (1998). Etiological theories of function: A geographical survey. Biology and Philosophy, 13(4), 505–527. doi:10.1023/A:1006559512367.
10.
Burek, P., Loebe, F. & Herre, H. (2015). A UML profile for functional modeling applied to the molecular function ontology. In F.Couto and J.Hastings (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, ICBO 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, July 27–30 (pp. 12–16). Lisbon: University of Lisbon.
11.
Carrara, M., Garbacz, P. & Vermaas, P.E. (2011). If engineering function is a family resemblance concept: Assessing three formalization strategies. Applied Ontology, 6(2), 141–163.
12.
Christensen, W.D. & Bickhard, M.H. (2002). The process dynamics of normative function. The Monist, 85(1), 3–28. doi:10.5840/monist20028516.
13.
Clark, A. & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7.
14.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 741–765. doi:10.2307/2024640.
15.
Davies, P.S. (2000). Malfunctions. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 19–38. doi:10.1023/A:1006525318699.
16.
Erden, M., Komoto, H., Van Beek, T.J., d’Amelio, V., Echavarria, E. & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: Approaches and applications. In Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (Vol. 22, pp. 147–169).
17.
Fraansen, M. (2009). The inherent normativity of functions in biology and technology. In U.Krohs and P.Kroes (Eds.), Functions in Biological and Artificial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives. MIT Press.
18.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (1993). Functions: Consensus without unity. Pacific Philosophical Quartery, 74(3), 196–208.
19.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (1994). A modern history theory of function. Nous, 28, 344–362. doi:10.2307/2216063.
20.
Herre, H., Heller, B., Burek, P., Loebe, F. & Michalek, H. (2006). General Formal Ontology (GFO): A foundational ontology integrating objects and processes. Part I: Basic principles (Version 1.0). Onto-Med Report Nr. 8. Germany: University of Leipzig.
21.
Hilpinen, R. (2011). Artifact. In E.N.Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2011 ed.). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/artifact.
22.
Houkes, W. & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.
23.
Johansson, I., Smith, B., Munn, K., Tsikolia, N., Elsner, K., Ernst, D. & Siebert, D. (2005). Functional anatomy: A taxonomic proposal. Acta Biotheoretica, 53(3), 153–166. doi:10.1007/s10441-005-2525-3.
24.
Kitamura, Y., Koji, Y. & Mizoguchi, R. (2006). An ontological model of device function: Industrial deployment and lessons learned. Applied Ontology, 1(3–4), 237–262.
25.
Krohs, U. & Kroes, P. (2009). Functions in Biological and Artificial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
Longy, F. (2009). How biological, cultural, and intended functions combine. In U.Krohs and P.Kroes (Eds.), Functions in Biological and Artificial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives. MIT Press.
27.
Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (Eds.) (2007). Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representations. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
28.
McLaughlin, P. (2001). What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
29.
Millikan, R.G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Millikan, R.G. (1989). In defense of proper functions. Philosophy of Science, 56, 288–302. doi:10.1086/289488.
31.
Mizoguchi, R., Kitamura, Y. & Borgo, S. (2012). Towards a unified definition of function. In M.Donnelly and G.Guizzardi (Eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2012) (pp. 103–116). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
32.
Mossio, M., Saborido, C. & Moreno, A. (2009). An organizational account of biological functions. British Society for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 813–841. doi:10.1093/bjps/axp036.
33.
Nagel, E. (1977). Functional explanations in biology. Journal of Philosophy, 74(5), 280–301. doi:10.2307/2025746.
34.
Nanay, B. (2010). A modal theory of functions. Journal of Philosophy, 107(8), 412–431. doi:10.5840/jphil2010107834.
35.
Nanay, B. (2013). Artifact categorization and the modal theory of artifact function. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 515–526. doi:10.1007/s13164-013-0143-6.
36.
Nanay, B. (2014). Teleosemantics without etiology. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 798–810. doi:10.1086/677684.
37.
Neander, K. (1995). Malfunctioning and misrepresenting. Philosophical Studies, 79, 109–141. doi:10.1007/BF00989706.
38.
Neander, K. (forthcoming). Functional analysis and the species design. Synthese.
39.
Oswalt, W.H. (1973). Habitat and Technology: The Evolution of Hunting. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
40.
Papineau, D. (1987). Reality and Representation. Oxford: Blackwell.
41.
Perlman, M. (2004). The modern philosophical resurrection of teleology. The Monist, 87(1), 3–51. doi:10.5840/monist20048711.
42.
Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. Journal of Philosophy, 95(5), 215–254. doi:10.2307/2564689.
43.
Preston, B. (2009). Philosophical theories of artifact function. In Meijers, A. (Ed.), The Handbook of the Philosophy of Technological Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Röhl, J. & Jansen, L. (2014). Why functions are not special dispositions: An improved classification of realizables for top-level ontologies. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5, 27. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-5-27.
46.
Saborido, C., Mossio, M. & Moreno, A. (2011). Biological organization and cross-generation functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 583–606. doi:10.1093/bjps/axq034.
47.
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.
48.
Vermaas, P.E. & Houkes, W. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artifacts: A challenge to etiological accounts of function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 268–289. doi:10.1093/bjps/54.2.261.
49.
Wouters, A. (2005). The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica, 53, 123–151. doi:10.1007/s10441-005-5353-6.
50.
Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82, 139–168. doi:10.2307/2183766.
