In a previous post, I referred to a quotation from Ralph W. Gerard (1900-1974). This prompted me to look at his other writing. The title of one book that particularly caught my eye was Body Functions (1941). (It was subtitled simply ‘Physiology’ as if body functions and physiology were in some way synonymous.) I am rather sensitive to the use of the word ‘function’. I once had to teach a course entitled ‘Human Function’. That was not a phrase of my own devising. It was meant to be a course on human anatomy.
I was once invited to a planning meeting in Heidelberg by a German philosopher friend. The aim was to put together a funding application for the study of the philosophical understanding of function from a biological perspective. The late American philosopher Karen Neander who did much work in this area was invited as a speaker. At that meeting I became acutely aware of the implications and problems that surround the word ‘function’—especially for philosophers. Frequently, the word implies something deliberate and purposive. In nature, there are no such things. There is no guiding or directing force; what happens does not happen for a specific purpose or with a particular aim. Whatever the personal religious beliefs of the scientist, any role for a deity offering a guiding hand is excluded. The scientific approach holds that everything can be explained by what there is; no external factors or entities are necessary. (As such science is inherently materialistic—although the conceptual framework offered by physicalism is preferred nowadays.)
The language we use to convey science must adhere carefully to the ethos of being unguided and undirected. Using words like ‘function’, with its purposeful connotations, can be misleading and must be avoided. To talk of the function of the heart is wrong. It does pump blood but it was never designed or meant for that specific purpose. It simply does something that contributes to the organism’s survival.
