目的论与生物学:为生物学的目的论思想辩护

M. D. Santis
{"title":"目的论与生物学:为生物学的目的论思想辩护","authors":"M. D. Santis","doi":"10.11606/issn.2178-6224v15p61-78","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Teleological language refers to a forward-looking discourse, and various biologists are troubled with this issue. In this paper, I will discuss the misunderstandings that both philosophers of science and biologists have made against teleology. Among these misunderstandings, I can mention its relationship to anthropomorphism (i.e., a planning agent external to the world reference) and reference to a force immanent to the organisms (“vitalism”) beyond the reach of empirical investigation. I will argue that they are misconceptions and that teleology has shifted its meaning and focus from its pre-evolutionary form. Now it is in the position that it can be used and maintained without violating the principles of modern science. Using an example of the adaptation and function debate, I will discuss how the teleological language is the best interpretation of these issues.","PeriodicalId":314079,"journal":{"name":"Filosofia e História da Biologia","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teleology and Biology: a defense of teleological thinking in biology\",\"authors\":\"M. D. Santis\",\"doi\":\"10.11606/issn.2178-6224v15p61-78\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Teleological language refers to a forward-looking discourse, and various biologists are troubled with this issue. In this paper, I will discuss the misunderstandings that both philosophers of science and biologists have made against teleology. Among these misunderstandings, I can mention its relationship to anthropomorphism (i.e., a planning agent external to the world reference) and reference to a force immanent to the organisms (“vitalism”) beyond the reach of empirical investigation. I will argue that they are misconceptions and that teleology has shifted its meaning and focus from its pre-evolutionary form. Now it is in the position that it can be used and maintained without violating the principles of modern science. Using an example of the adaptation and function debate, I will discuss how the teleological language is the best interpretation of these issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":314079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Filosofia e História da Biologia\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Filosofia e História da Biologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2178-6224v15p61-78\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofia e História da Biologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2178-6224v15p61-78","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的论语言指的是一种前瞻性的话语,许多生物学家都为这个问题所困扰。在本文中,我将讨论科学哲学家和生物学家对目的论的误解。在这些误解中,我可以提到它与拟人化的关系(即,一种外部于世界参考的计划代理)和对生物体内在力量的参考(“活力论”),超出了经验调查的范围。我认为它们是误解,目的论已经从进化前的形式转移了它的意义和焦点。现在,它处于可以在不违反现代科学原理的情况下使用和维护的位置。我将以适应性和功能争论为例,讨论目的论语言如何成为这些问题的最佳解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teleology and Biology: a defense of teleological thinking in biology
Teleological language refers to a forward-looking discourse, and various biologists are troubled with this issue. In this paper, I will discuss the misunderstandings that both philosophers of science and biologists have made against teleology. Among these misunderstandings, I can mention its relationship to anthropomorphism (i.e., a planning agent external to the world reference) and reference to a force immanent to the organisms (“vitalism”) beyond the reach of empirical investigation. I will argue that they are misconceptions and that teleology has shifted its meaning and focus from its pre-evolutionary form. Now it is in the position that it can be used and maintained without violating the principles of modern science. Using an example of the adaptation and function debate, I will discuss how the teleological language is the best interpretation of these issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信