Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Systemic concepts of function do permit attributions of malfunction.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Systemic explanations of biological wholes are multiply realizable, so no single token component has a privileged 'role' against which deviation counts as malfunction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without a normative standard external to the system itself, variance from a statistical role is mere difference, not malfunction—Boorse's biostatistical theory illustrates this collapse.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Cummins's systemic account defines function purely relationally—as causal contribution to system capacity—leaving no resources to distinguish malfunction from alternative contribution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A heart producing arrhythmic contractions still causally contributes to circulatory system explanation, so on systemic grounds it cannot be classified as malfunctioning rather than differently functioning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
A token component is malfunctioning when it cannot play the role that lets other tokens of the same type feature in the explanation of the larger system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.