排序方式: 共有2条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Arthur Fine 《Philosophical Studies》2009,143(1):117-125
This is a comment on Peter Godfrey-Smith’s, “Models and Fictions in Science”. The comments explore problems he raises if we
treat model systems as fictions in a naturalized and deflationary framework. 相似文献
2.
Robert Arp 《Journal for General Philosophy of Science》2007,38(1):19-30
Summary In the biological realm, a complete explanation of a trait seems to include an explanation in terms of function. It is natural
to ask of some trait, “What is its function?” or “What purpose in the organism does the particular trait serve?” or “What
is the goal of its activity?” There are several views concerning the appropriate definition of function for biological matters.
Two popular views of function with respect to living things are Cummins’ organizational account and the Griffiths/Godfrey-Smith
modern history account. Whereas Cummins argues that a trait functions so as to contribute to the general organization of some
organism’s present structure, Griffiths, and Godfrey-Smith argue that a trait functions because of its fitness with respect
to the organism’s recent evolutionary history. In this paper, I show how these accounts can be made compatible and compliment
one another. Given that structure, organization, operational flexibility, function, and evolutionary history are all factors
to be considered in an organism’s makeup, we should expect that the traits of an organism function the way they do because
such traits presently contribute to the overall organization of the organism (Cummins) as well as were selected for in the
organism’s species’ recent ancestry (Griffiths/Godfrey-Smith). 相似文献
1