The history of biology is mottled with disputes between two distinct approaches to the organic structuralism and functionalism. Their persistence across radical theory change makes them difficult to the characterization must be abstract enough to capture biologists with diverse theoretical commitments, yet not so abstract as to be vacuous. This Element develops a novel account of structuralism and functionalism in terms of explanatory strategies (Section 2). This reveals the possibility of integrating the two strategies; the explanatory successes of evolutionary-developmental biology essentially depend on such integration (Section 3). Neither explanatory strategy is universally subordinate to the other, though subordination with respect to particular explanatory tasks is possible (Section 4). Beyond structuralism and functionalism, philosophical analysis that centers explanatory strategies can illuminate conflicts within evolutionary theory more generally (Section 5).
This is a brief analysis of controversies in biological theory that have been characterized as between structuralists and functions, what 19th century biologists like Darwin identified as arguments about the contribution of Unity of Type versus Conditions of Existence. Novick starts by first probing whether the two positions actually represent anything substantial and stable over the history of biology and then examines questions of how they have interacted, their relative merits and prospects for integration. Novick finds it useful to characterize them as explanatory strategies functionalist seek to explain the current properties of organisms by reference to their functional needs where structuralists seek to explain those properties by the powers and limitations of the structure of the organisms. Also discussed is the relationship between these strategies and other conceptual frameworks employed in philosophy of science and epistemology such as paradigms and stances. Some other broad concepts in evolutionary theory are also touched on such as internalism and externalism.
The work serves as a nice introduction to these questions. The examples are explained briefly and well and give insight into subjects like Evo-Devo and neutral evolution. As one might expect from Novick the attitude of the author to the subject is related to the work of ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuang Zhou.