Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:55 | Cite as

Integrative pluralism for biological function

  • Samuel Cusimano
  • Beckett SternerEmail author
Article
  • 297 Downloads

Abstract

We introduce a new type of pluralism about biological function that, in contrast to existing, demonstrates a practical integration among the term’s different meanings. In particular, we show how to generalize Sandra Mitchell’s notion of integrative pluralism to circumstances where multiple epistemic tools of the same type are jointly necessary to solve scientific problems. We argue that the multiple definitions of biological function operate jointly in this way based on how biologists explain the evolution of protein function. To clarify how our account relates to existing views, we introduce a general typology for monist and pluralist accounts along with standardized criteria for judging which is best supported by evidence.

Keywords

Conceptual analysis Explanation Monism Protein function Evolution Gene duplication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The idea for practice-oriented conceptual analysis first emerged from conversations Sterner had with Joyce Havstad and Scott Lidgard at the Field Museum, but the views we present here are our own and do not necessarily reflect their considered positions. We thank the organizers and participants of the Scientific Knowledge Under Pluralism conference at the University of Pittsburgh in 2017, and the University of Michigan’s Society of Fellows program for providing us with the time and support to collaborate on this project. We also thank the two anonymous referees for this manuscript who provided helpful and constructive responses.

References

  1. Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose. Biol Philos 9:443–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenas M (2015) Trends in substitution models of molecular evolution. Front Genet 6(52):319Google Scholar
  3. Artiga M (2011) Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Appl Ontol 6(2):105–124Google Scholar
  4. Autumn K, Ryan MJ, Wake DB (2002) Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Q Rev Biol 77(4):383–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel W (1993) Integrating sciences by creating new disciplines: the case of cell biology. Biol Philos 8(3):277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigelow J, Pargetter R (1987) Functions. J Philos 84(4):181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binney N (2018a) The function of the heart is historically contingent. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 68–69:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binney N (2018b) The function of the heart is not obvious. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 68–69:56–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boorse C (1976) Wright on functions. Philos Rev 85(1):70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boorse C (2014) A second rebuttal on health. J Med Philos 39(6):683–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd RN (1999) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 141–185Google Scholar
  12. Brandon RN (2013) A general case for functional pluralism. In: Huneman P (ed) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brigandt I (2003) Species pluralism does not imply species eliminativism. Philos Sci 70(5):1305–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brigandt I (2009) The epistemic goal of a concept. Synthese 177(1):19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brigandt I (2011) Natural kinds and concepts: a pragmatist and methodologically naturalistic account. In: Knowles J, Rydenfelt H (eds) Pragmatism, science, and naturalism. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, Bern, pp 171–196Google Scholar
  16. Brigandt I (2013) Integration in biology: philosophical perspectives on the dynamics of interdisciplinarity. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):461–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brigandt I, Love AC (2012) Conceptualizing evolutionary novelty. J Exp Zool Part B 318(6):417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brigandt I, Rosario E (Forthcoming) Strategic conceptual engineering for epistemic and social aims. In: Burgess A, Cappelen H, Plunkett D (eds) Conceptual engineering and conceptual ethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Brigandt I, Steinle F (2012) The dynamics of scientific concepts. In: Feest U (ed) Scientific concepts and investigative practice. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 75–103Google Scholar
  20. Bzovy J (2017) Species pluralism: conceptual, ontological, and practical dimensions. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4309. Accessed 11 Apr 2019
  21. Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72(20):741–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Currie A (2014) Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biol Philos 30(2):187–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuthill I (2005) The study of function in behavioural ecology. Anim Biol 55(4):399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Darden L, Maull N (1977) Interfield theories. Philos Sci 44(1):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dewey J (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry. Irvington Publishers, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Dittmar K, Liberles D (2011) Evolution after gene duplication. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Franz NM, Sterner BW (2018) To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data. Database.  https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garson J (2016) A critical overview of biological functions. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garson J (2017) How to be a function pluralist. Br J Philos Sci 69:1101–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garson J, Piccinini G (2014) Functions must be performed at appropriate rates in appropriate situations. Br J Philos Sci 65(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerson EM (2014) The interaction of research systems in the Evo-devo juncture. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology, vol 307. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 441–457Google Scholar
  32. Godfrey-Smith P (1993) Functions: consensus without unity. Pac Philos Q 74:193–208Google Scholar
  33. Godfrey-Smith P (1994) A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28(3):344–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Darwinian Individuals. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals: perspectives on biological associations and emerging individuality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Hahn MW (2009) Distinguishing among evolutionary models for the maintenance of gene duplicates. J Hered 100(5):605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hausman DM (2014) Health and functional efficiency. J Med Philos 39(6):634–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kay LE (2000) Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Kimura M (1985) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Kingma E (2010) Paracetamol, poison, and polio. Br J Philos Sci 61(2):241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kingma E (2015) Situation-specific disease and dispositional function. Br J Philos Sci 67(2):391–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kitcher P (1981) Explanatory unification. Philos Sci 48(4):507–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitcher P (1993) The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Kraemer DM (2013) Statistical theories of functions and the problem of epidemic disease. Biol Philos 28(3):423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kraemer DM (2018) Philosophical analyses of scientific concepts. Philos Compass 13(9):e12513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krohs U (2007) Functions as based on a concept of general design. Synthese 166(1):69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leonelli S (2013) Integrating data to acquire new knowledge: three modes of integration in plant science. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leonelli S (2016) Data-centric biology: a philosophical study. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Li W-H (1983) Evolution of duplicate genes and pseudogenes. In: Nei M, Koehn RK (eds) Evolution of genes and proteins. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 14–37Google Scholar
  50. Love AC (2008) Explaining evolutionary innovations and novelties. Philos Sci 75(5):874–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Love AC, Lugar GL (2013) Dimensions of integration in interdisciplinary explanations of the origin of evolutionary novelty. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 44(4):537–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lynch M, Katju V (2004) The altered evolutionary trajectories of gene duplicates. Trends Genet 20(11):544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Machery E (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mahner M, Bunge M (2001) Function and functionalism: a synthetic perspective. Philos Sci 68(1):75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mayo DG (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Millerand F, Ribes D, Baker KS, Bowker GC (2013) Making an issue out of a standard: storytelling practices in a scientific community. Sci Technol Hum Values 38(1):7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Millikan RG (2002) Biofunctions: two paradigms. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions: new essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–143Google Scholar
  58. Mitchell SD (1995) Function, fitness and disposition. Biol Philos 10:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell SD (2002) Integrative pluralism. Biol Philos 17:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mitchell SD (2003) Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moreno A, Mossio M (2015) Biological autonomy. Springer Netherlands, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mossio M, Saborido C (2016) Functions, organization and etiology: a reply to artiga and martinez. Acta Biotheor 64(3):263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mossio M, Saborido C, Moreno A (2009) An organizational account of biological functions. Br J Philos Sci 60(4):813–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Neander K (1991) Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense. Philos Sci 58(2):168–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nickles T (1981) What is a problem that we may solve it? Synthese 47:85–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Malley MA, Soyer OS (2012) The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. O’Malley MA, Elliott KC, Burian RM (2010) From genetic to genomic regulation: iterativity in microRNA research. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 41(4):407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perlman M (2009) Changing the mission of theories of teleology: DOs and DON’Ts for thinking about function. In: Krohs U, Kroes P (eds) Functions in biological and artificial worlds. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Piatigorsky J (2007) Gene sharing and evolution. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pigliucci M (2003) Species as family resemblance concepts. BioEssays 25(6):596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Putnam H (1973) Meaning and reference. J Philos 70(19):699–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Queloz M (2019) The points of concepts. Can J Philos 37(1):1–24Google Scholar
  74. Ruse ME (1971) Functional statements in biology. Philos Sci 38(1):87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Saborido C (2014) New directions in the philosophy of biology: a new taxonomy of functions. In: Galavotti MC, Dieks D, Gonzalez WJ, Hartmann S, Uebel T, Weber M (eds) New directions in the philosophy of science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 235–251Google Scholar
  76. Saborido C, Mossio M, Alvaro M (2011) Biological organization and cross-generation functions. Br J Philos Sci 62(3):583–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saborido C, Moreno A, González-Moreno M, Clemente JCH (2016) Organizational malfunctions and the notions of health and disease. In: Giroux É (ed) Naturalism in the philosophy of health. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schaffner KF (1967) Approaches to reduction. Philos Sci 34(2):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ségurel L, Bon C (2017) On the evolution of lactase persistence in humans. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 18(1):297–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walsh DM, Ariew A (1996) A taxonomy of functions. Can J Philos 26(4):493–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Waters CK (2014) Shifting attention from theory to practice in philosophy of biology. In: Galavotti MC (ed) New directions in the philosophy of science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 121–139Google Scholar
  82. Wilson M (2006) Wandering significance. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wimsatt WC (2013) Evolution and the stability of functional architectures. In: Huneman P (ed) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Woodward J (2017) Scientific explanation. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2017 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/. Accessed 11 Apr 2019
  85. Wouters AG (2003) Four notions of biological function. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34(4):633–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wouters AG (2007) Design explanation: determining the constraints on what can be alive. Erkenntnis 67(1):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wright L (1973) Functions. Philos Rev 82(2):139–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of MedicineOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations