Biological adaptation

Philosophy of Science 39 (4):525-528 (1972)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In successive issues of this journal Ronald Munson [2] and I [4] have made, quite independently, conflicting claims about the relationship between biological adaptation and biological function. I state, admittedly without proof, that “a functional statement in biology draws attention to the fact that what is under consideration is an adaptation or something which confers an ‘adaptive advantage’ on its possessor”. This was an identity claim. Munson claims, with proof, that “adaptation and function are not identical”. In this discussion note I want to examine the three arguments Munson gives in support of his claim, and I shall try to show that they do not hold.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,435

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
32 (#491,718)

6 months
16 (#151,161)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Ruse
Florida State University

Citations of this work

A reply to Wright's analysis of functional statements.Michael Ruse - 1973 - Philosophy of Science 40 (2):277-280.
Biological adaptation: A reply.Ronald Munson - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (4):529-532.
Consciousness and Evolution.Irina-Gabriela Buda - 2009 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 14 (2):329-342.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Functional statements in biology.Michael E. Ruse - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (1):87-95.
Biological adaptation.Ronald Munson - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (2):200-215.

Add more references