You choose topic, I choose position.

My view on the topic is as follows. Talk about functionality is incorrect. Furthermore, it makes for bad science, bad human resource management and bad data. It sneaks in induction where it has no place. Originally the claim of Dr Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide it is used as a straw man against those who raise the problem of evil. It is only our ignorance that causes us to think that the world contains evil. If we truly understood the mind of God, then we would see that everything was working just as it should; that this is indeed the best of possible worlds. So much for the Atheist Theist background of the case. As I said, I dislike the argument because it is purely analytic yet seems to have predictive consequences. If I could only discover the true functionality of this thingamajig I would know how it will behave in all situations and for all time. I suggest that the error of functional ascriptions to the mechanism is erroneous both in two ways. 1) It is liable to be reified so that functional explanations speak not so much of what things do but of what they ought to do. 2) It is based on a construction of a function that we cannot have. One which is too precise. Or 1 that is too broad. I shall consider myself successful if I show that functionalism within science or metaphysics is either empty and false or empty and meaningless. A function is a mapping between states of affairs objects and such like with changes actions and such like. In functional calculi, large functions may be composed of a series of a smaller function. Further more functions are multi-realisable different sets of functions may mediate between a set of input states or data and a set of output states or data. so for example for the functions f( x,y) ->x+y/y) is equivalent f(x) -> x +1 for all numbers greater than zero. The internal functions do not matter what important is that the function add one to the value of x (y is irrelevant because it does not change). In mathematics, we throw worldly constraints out of the window. When we talk of addition and subtraction, we mean that a functional object must never deviate in the mapping from the output input pairs described by addition. If we look closely it should be clear that the addition function can never be completed, it requires an infinite/transfinite number of iterations depending on whether you are adding reals or integer. The set of functions, operating over integers, reals, complex and hyper-complex numbers, is greater than the set of integers. When describing human counting, we tend to take a different view accepting aberration after aberration without revoking the idea that someone is a competent adder. It is impossible to name every possible function even if we allow these functions to have names of infinite length. Nevertheless disagreeing in output for a given input is sufficient for a claim that a functional object does not perform a given function. When we attribute a function to a thing we make the claim that this and this alone is the function that describes its behaviour, with respect to its input and output domains. So when I say that my computer can do addition I take it to mean that it will give the correct answer to any sum if give it. My computer does not work like this however,It performs a function more akin to for some constant to compadd(x,y) if (x+y >COMPMAX)->Error; else ->x +y). either that or it will simply output COMPMAX. Computers networked or not, only have finite storage. Furthermore, problems with the display, heat, a short-circuit and a thousand other things may result in an error. We still say computers add when they perform some form of modular addition. To know the true function of a material thing in dealing with a thing relies on knowledge of it behaviour over time; its complete history. With computer too we allow for aberrations, as we do for Humans. Performing functions is then an odd idea we are not clear on when to say that a person, computer, volcano is following a function. We might say that x is following a different function. X produces pretty random responses when the inputs get to around 2334596 each or He was not concentrating. Or we may say it is an aberration and that, for some reason a wrong output has occurred but that the person is still following the function. A second way to assign functionality to a thing is to say what it is used for. Beware within there be Dead parrot sketches and Wiley Coyotes. 'My washing machine does not work, I'd like a new one'. 'You mean you'd like a washing machine, your machine isn't one', 'I mean I want a replacement' 'for what?, here is a bucket here is a stick'. If you take the view that something gains its functionality from the use we make of it. You must take on board the fact that the fact a thing is used for something does not make it fit for purpose. Ultimately we have a situation where for a given input to and output from a given object that a) The object lacks a functionality F b)The object retains the functionality F. c) c the object really has a functionality F*. In such a situation, we can say that any behaviour of a functional object can be interpreted as falling within a function description. In which case we have no means for saying that a functional object falls under any functional description at all. In short it is impossible to know the true mathematical function of a thing without having powers we do not have. It is not possible to say that a thing functions perfectly by fitting its purpose more or less this will depend on how you assign it a purpose. To attempt a combined approach where we treat functionality as neither analytic nor utility based seems doomed to confounding the problems of the two. Combing the two leads to an ill defined middle where the inexac http://www.debate.org...