I defend the historical definition of “function” originally given in my Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories (1984a). The definition was not offered in the spirit of conceptual analysis but is more akin to a theoretical definition of “function”. A major theme is that nonhistorical analyses of “function” fail to deal adequately with items that are not capable of performing their functions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruth Garrett Millikan (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: