Authors

David J. Buller

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

Formulations of the essential commitment of the etiological theory of functions have varied significantly, with some individual authors' formulations even varying from one place to another. The logical geography of these various formulations is different from what is standardly assumed; for they are not stylistic variants of the same essential commitment, but stylistic variants of two non-equivalent versions of the etiological theory. I distinguish these strong and weak versions of the etiological theory (which differ with respect to the role of selection in their definitions of function), draw out their respective implications, and argue that the weak version is to be preferred to the strong.

DOI

10.1023/A:1006559512367

Publication Date

10-1-1998

Department

Department of Philosophy

Language

eng

Publisher

Biology and Philosophy

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.