In this paper, we aim at defending new functionalism by recasting it in light of the concrete explanatory aims of the special sciences, more broadly construed. He takes this dilemma to pose a serious challenge to new functionalism. Buckner argues that functional kinds are either still amenable to mechanistic decomposition (this holds for abstractions) or that the models involving functional kinds incur a loss of counterfactual power (this holds for fictions and reifications). In a recent iteration of the debate between functionalists and mechanists, Buckner ( 2015) introduces a dilemma for Weiskopf’s account. However, new functionalism has also received some critical reactions. Taken together, both of these elements are intended to show that functional kinds can serve as central explanatory units in the special sciences even if they are not amenable to mechanistic decomposition. Each of these strategies indicates why a particular functional kind is not amenable to mechanistic decomposition. Moreover, according to Weiskopf, functional kinds can be individuated via one of three different strategies: fictionalization, reification, or abstraction. Footnote 2 Roughly, new functionalism holds that functionally individuated states and processes constitute kinds if they figure into a range of successful models instead of well-supported laws. To address these concerns, Weiskopf ( 2011a, 2011b, 2017) has posited a reformulation of functionalism on the model-based approach to explanation-we refer to this reformulation as new functionalism. This leaves functionalism in a precarious position regarding whether and how functionally individuated states and processes can legitimately figure into explanations. According to mechanists, it is through mechanistic decomposition that the special sciences ultimately achieve their explanatory aims. On the other hand, recent growing support for mechanistic explanation in the special sciences suggests that functionalism’s emphasis on roles can be problematic if it prevents scientists from decomposing systems under investigation into mechanisms (Craver & Bechtel, 2006 Bechtel & Richardson, 2010). The main problem with this defense is that it has become doubtful whether there are any such laws in the special sciences (Cartwright, 1999 cf. On the one hand, early defenders of functionalism, like Fodor ( 1974), argued that the existence of well-supported laws involving functional kinds vindicates functionalism as an explanatory strategy. While functionalism is still dominant in many domains of the biological, behavioral, and psychological sciences, evolving debates in philosophy of science indicate problems with traditional arguments in support of functionalism. Footnote 1 Functionalists maintain that such functionally individuated states and processes can legitimately figure into explanations in the special sciences. The standard view of functionalism holds that some states and processes can be individuated based on what role they play rather than on what they are strictly constituted of. Whether functionalism offers a legitimate basis for providing explanations in the special sciences is an on-going debate in philosophy of science. Our argument is intended to have the double impact of deflecting criticisms against new functionalism from the perspective of mechanistic decomposition while also expanding the scope of new functionalism to encompass the social and behavioral sciences. Specifically, we focus on preferences and signals as functional kinds. We aim at demonstrating this by appealing to model-based explanations from the social and behavioral sciences. In particular, we argue that the assessment of the explanatory legitimacy of a functional kind needs to take into account the explanatory purpose of the model in which the functional kind is employed. In this paper, we seek to defend new functionalism and to recast it in light of the concrete explanatory aims of the special sciences. We refer to this reformulation as ‘new functionalism’. Recently, Weiskopf (2011a, 2011b) has posited a reformulation of functionalism on the model-based approach to explanation. Generally construed, functionalism is the view that states or processes can be individuated based on what role they play rather than what they are constituted of or realized by. Functionalism about kinds is still the dominant style of thought in the special sciences, like economics, psychology, and biology.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |