On the debate about teleology in biology: the notion of "teleological obstacle (original) (raw)

Teleology and Biology: a defense of teleological thinking in biology

2020

A linguagem teleologica pode ser definida como um discurso prospectivo, e isto tem preocupado biologos em torno desse problema. Neste artigo, discutirei os mal-entendidos que filosofos da ciencia e biologos tiveram acerca da teleologia. Por exemplo, afirmam que a teleologia sofre de antropomorfismo (isto e, um agente de planejamento externo a referencia mundial) e se refere a uma forca imanente aos organismos (forcas vitais ou “vitalismo”) alem do alcance da investigacao empirica. Argumentarei que eles estao equivocados e que a teleologia mudou seu significado e foco de sua forma pre-evolutiva, e agora pode ser usada e mantida sem violar os principios da ciencia moderna. Usando como exemplo o debate sobre adaptacao e funcao, discutirei como a linguagem teleologica e a melhor interpretacao para essas questoes.

Teleology and the life sciences: between limit concept and ontological necessity

2014

"Against the background of the current discussion about self-organization theories and complexity theories and their application within biology and ecology, the question of teleology gains a new significance. Some scholars insist on the total elimination of any reference to teleology from the realm of the natural sciences. However, it seems especially hard to eradicate teleological expressions from scientific language when the issue of understanding living beings is at stake. For this reason, other scholars opt for a middle path that allows for some teleological language. Yet, it is an open question whether teleological expressions are to be considered as playing a merely metaphorical or a necessary heuristic role in the sciences. Moreover, the ontological presuppositions, which underpin different positions in the debate, need to be depicted and analyzed. This paper aims at addressing the question of teleology within the life sciences by taking into account both Kant’s critical philosophy and Whitehead’s ontology. My analysis starts with Georg Toepfer’s distinction among different concepts of teleology and then focuses on the role of “internal purposiveness” (innere Zweckmäßigkeit) for biology today. I show how purposiveness (Zweckmäßigkeit; hereafter: ZM) corresponds to a very complex form of reciprocal causation (Wechselwirkung) rather than to any model of final causation. Drawing on Kant’s analysis of “natural purposes” in the Critique of Judgment as well as self-organization theory, I claim that reciprocal causation – however complex it might well be – is not sufficient to describe living beings adequately. However, since the natural sciences are still caught up in the presuppositions of modern scientistic and materialistic ontology, a step beyond mere efficient causation seems to be impossible within their methodological framework. And yet, as I will show, a genuine teleology of nature implies the idea of anticipation of totality. This kind of teleological consideration is presented at first in its role as a regulative concept in Kantian terms. Finally, I follow the path of Whitehead’s ‘philosophy of organism’ and claim for natural teleology the state of a necessary ontological presupposition. Whitehead’s ontology offers an ontological underpinning for teleological issues that, by avoiding any recourse to supernatural forces, invites life and natural sciences to a fruitful dialogue at the limit of their methodological boundaries, pressing them beyond their unreflected presuppositions."

The relationship between biological function and teleology: Implications for biology education

Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2020

This paper explicates the relationship between biological function and teleology by focusing not only on difference but also on conceptual overlap. By doing so, this paper is meant to increase awareness of the misleading potential of biological function and the educational necessity to explicate the meaning of biological function to biology students to prevent them from drawing inadequate teleological conclusions about biological phenomena. The conceptual overlap between teleology and biological function lies in the notion of telos (end, goal). Biologically inadequate teleology assumes that teloi (ends, goals) exist in nature and that natural mechanisms are directed towards teloi. Such inadequate teleological assumptions have been documented in students’ reasoning about biological phenomena. Biological function, however, does not involve the assumption that teloi exist in nature. Rather, biologists use the notion of telos as an epistemological tool whenever they consider a structure...

On the status of teleological discourse: a confusing fiction or a description of reality

Hungarian Philosophical Review, 2023

In modern philosophy and science teleological descriptions of nature got discredited and abolished from the mainstream worldview. With the advent of new theories of organisms and self-maintaining systems more generally a rethinking of the received view is in order and is already under way. This paper aims at assessing different possible interpretations of the status of teleological descriptions of organic, animate nature, considering the virtues and challenges of a realist, but physicalist/reductionist approach, comparing it at certain points to fictionalist and eliminativist attitudes. The aim is to establish that it is a live option, it is rational to think that teleology is a real, not purely projected property of some systems in nature. By real I don't mean that it is an ontologically fundamental property of physical simples. I aim to show that it is closer to e.g. the examples of mechanical hardness or temperature, physical properties that we all take seriously, both in everyday life and in science. E.g., hardness is considered to be reducible to certain microphysical configurations in a case-by-case fashion, as it is realized differently in different kinds of solid matter. However, as there are no obvious cases of teleology reduction similar to the case of hardness or temperature, the project is more challenging than in the mentioned cases, but it is promising, and that promise could also serve as an argument for taking teleology more seriously.

Modern Biological Neo-Teleologism vs. Aristotle’s Genuine Telos (2016)

Published in: BIOCOSMOLOGY – NEO-ARISTOTELISM 6 (3&4) pp. 414-426, 2016

In the first half of the 20 th century the attempt was made to banish all teleological thinking from biology. In the last few decades, several biologists and philosophers of biology have claimed that organisms may be considered teleological entities, spurring on a movement that can be described as 'neo-teleologism.' However, while biologists and philosophers of biology talk about 'teleology', it is not always clear what they mean by this term. This paper introduces the central ideas of the most influential neo-teleological approaches and compares them with the metaphysical fundaments of Aristotle's teleology. The main aim of the paper is to make clear that neo-teleologism and Aristotelian teleology are based on entirely different metaphysical assumptions. The latter, in contrast to the former, exemplifies the idea that living beings have an intrinsic nature and value.

Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology

Blyth Institute, 2020

In the early twentieth century, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory replaced traditional teleological causality as the accepted explanatory basis for biology. Yet, despite this rejection of teleology, biologists continue to resort to the language of purpose and design in order to define function, explain physiological processes, and describe behavior. The legitimacy of such teleological language is currently debated among biologists and philosophers of science. Many biologists and educators argue that teleological language can function as a type of convenient shorthand for describing function while some argue that such language contradicts the fundamentally ateleological nature of evolutionary theory. Others, such as Ernst Mayr, have attempted to redefine teleology in such a way as to evade any metaphysical implications. However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleo-logical. It is the teleological character of life which makes it a unique phenomenon requiring a unique discipline of study distinct from physics or chemistry. "Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her."-J. B. S. Haldane