Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T08:13:13.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Problems with the Concept of ‘Feedback’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

William C. Wimsatt
William C. Wimsatt*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The concept of ‘feedback’, originally a technical term of cybernetics, has been so widely applied that it has become part of our everyday vocabulary. Though both scientists and philosophers have considered in detail a number of conceptual issues suggested by the perspectives of cybernetics, this basic concept has not yet received the critical attention it deserves.

Thus, while Taylor [1-3] Scheffler [4-5], and others have criticized Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow [6-8] for trying to define ‘teleological’ behavior in terms of negative feedback, their objections are directed primarily against the use of ‘naive’ or ‘black box’ behavioristic assumptions and the choice of the term ‘teleological’ to describe the phenomena in question. The concept of feedback is largely accepted by both factions on more or less intuitive grounds.

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 241 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Taylor, R., ‘Comments on a Mechanistic Definition of Purposefulness’, Phil. Sci. 17 (1950) 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Taylor, R., ‘Purposeful and Non-Purposeful Behavior: A Rejoinder’, Ibid., 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Taylor, R., Action and Purpose, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966.Google Scholar
[4] Scheffler, I., ‘Thoughts on Teleology’, Brit. J. Phil. Sci, 9 (1959) 265-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Scheffler, I., The Anatomy of Inquiry, Knopf, New York, 1963, pp. 110-26.Google Scholar
[6] Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., and Bigelow, J., ‘Behavior, Purpose, and Teleology’, Phil. Sci. 10 (1943) 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Rosenblueth, A. and Wiener, N., ‘Purposeful and Non-Purposeful Behavior’, Phil. Sci. 17 (1950) 318-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Wiener, N., Cybernetics (2nd revised ed.), M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1961.Google Scholar
[9] Kleene, S. C., ‘Representation of Events in Nerve Nets and Finite Automata’ in Automata Studies (ed. by Shannon, C. E. and McCarthy, J.), Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1956, pp. 3–42.Google Scholar
[10] Nagel, E., The Structure of Science, Harcourt, New York, 1961, Chapter 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Beckner, M., The Biological Way of Thought, Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Beckner, M., ‘Teleology’, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. by Edwards, R. P.), Macmillan, New York, 1968, pp. 88–91.Google Scholar
[13] Beckner, M., ‘Function and Teleology’, J. Hist. Biol. 2, 151-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Sommerhoff, G., Analytical Biology, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1950.Google Scholar
[15] Ashby, W. R., Design for a Brain, Wiley, New York, 1952 (2nd revised ed.), 1960.Google Scholar
[16] McCulloch, W. S. and Pitts, W. H., ‘A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity’, Bull. Math. Biophysics 5 (1943) 115-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Simon, H. A. and Rescher, N., ‘Cause and Counterfactual’, Phil. Sci. 33 (1966) 323-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Braithwaite, R. B., Scientific Explanation, Cambridge University Press, London, 1953, Chapter 10.Google Scholar
[19] Bertalanffy, L. von, ‘The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology’, Science 111, 23–29. and ‘An Outline of General Systems Theory’, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 1, 139-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Kacser, H., ‘Some Physico-Chemical Aspects of Biological Organization’, printed as an appendix to C. H. Waddington's The Strategy of the Genes, Macmillan, New York, 1957, pp. 191–249.Google Scholar
[21] Grodins, F. S., Control Theory and Biological Systems, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
[22] Weaver, W., ‘Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication’, in The Mathematical Theory of Communication (ed. by Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W.), Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1949, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar