Function as Design versus Function as Usefulness.
<p class=default>
<b>Function as Design versus Function as Usefulness.</b>
<br/>
Wayne D. Christensen, Mark H. Bickhard
<br/>
<u>PDF <http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/funcdesignfuncuseful.pdf></u>
</p>
<p>
This paper argues for a radically different approach to normative function than the
dominant etiological account, an approach with a broader explanatory agenda. Concepts of
biological function address two related but distinct issues: understanding biological
organisms as complex organized systems, and understanding the way in which parts have come
to be present in organisms because of their adaptive value. The etiological account
focuses primarily on the latter, treating the complex organization of organisms as a
derivative issue solved in passing, as it were, by explanations for the presence of parts
within organisms. This way of treating the issues is unsatisfactory, however, since the
etiological model of normative function fails to provide the conceptual resources required
for understanding the complex process interrelationships characteristic of organisms as
organizationally integrated systems. It makes normative functions epiphenomenal, it
provides a limited account of dysfunction, and it is unable to adequately characterize
multifunctional parts or the organization of densely connected functional complexes. In
other words, although explanations for the presence of traits and explanations for the way
organisms function as complex integrated systems certainly overlap, they are not
conceptually or causally identical issues, and nor can one issue be treated purely as
derivative upon the other. Our approach recognizes this and develops an account of
normative function that directly focuses on whole-system organization and process
interdependence.
</p>
<p>
<br/>
</p>