© 1996 by British Society for the Philosophy of Science
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Articles |
Functional Explanation and Virtual Selection
Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Invoking its social function can explain why we find a certain functional trait or institution only if we can identify a mechanism whereby the playing of the function connects with the explanandum. That is the main claim in the missing-mechanism critique of functionalism. Is it correct? Yes, if functional explanation is meant to make sense of the actual presence of the trait or institution. No, if it is meant to make sense of why the trait or institution is resilient: why we can rely on it to survive various contingencies. The lesson? Social functionalism should be taken, and may have been taken by its founders, as a programme for explaining resilience.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Marchionni Explanatory Pluralism and Complementarity: From Autonomy to Integration Philosophy of the Social Sciences, September 1, 2008; 38(3): 314 - 333. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Dubreuil Strong Reciprocity and the Emergence of Large-Scale Societies Philosophy of the Social Sciences, June 1, 2008; 38(2): 192 - 210. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
