2 ms·
But must an explanation always be a functional one? This seems extremely limited and limiting. Certainly the shape of the body, like every complex system, has s
by nsns 11y ago
But must an explanation always be a functional one? This seems extremely limited and limiting. Certainly the shape of the body, like every complex system, has some contingent or incidental characteristics to it (e.g. five fingers, various eye colors, etc.). It also stands to reason that every animal would have some unique manifestations of its differentiation from all others; it would obviously be a fallacy to consider such differentiating traits as necessarily important in and of themselves.
- dalke 11y agoYou are right - no, it doesn't. The article mentions Gould and Lewontin's 'spandrel' theory as one a framework to understand non-functional explanation, then presents a spandrel explanation for the chin. You might be interested in reading their original paper, "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme", available from http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf .