Yazata Wrote:David Hull (1974, p.102) put the matter very nicely:
"Just as a physicist might say that heating a gas causes it to expand, a biologist might say that heating a mammal causes it to sweat. But a biologist might also say that a mammal sweats when heated in order to keep its temperature constant, while no physicist would say that a gas expands when heated in order to keep its temperature constant --- even though that is exactly what happens.
What, then, are the theoretical commitments implicit in the biological concept of function that distinguish the case of the sweating mammal from that of the expanding gas? Why is constant temperature merely an effect of gas expansion while being the "function" of sweating in mammals? Explicating the biologist's concept of function in order to answer these questions is one of the problems for a philosopher of science interested in biology...
An obvious way to think about the difference between the sweating mammal and the expanding gas is in terms of goals or purposes: sweating is in some sense "goal directed" or "purposive"...
But, while we have a firm grasp of teleological processes in the behavioral arena (we know that it is for a person to act purposively or in a goal-directed manner), how can a process such as sweating be teleological (purposive or goal directed)? This question cuts to the heart of a long-standing philosophical problem. For ever since the scientific revolution, one of philosophy's foremost problems has been whether, and if so how, teleology is possible in nature. This problem has its roots in the conflict between Aristotelian metaphysics, which dominated philosophical thought before the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the "corpuscularian" or "mechanical philosophy" that accompanied the scientific revolution.
http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/54101.pdf
(Oct 13, 2017 09:05 PM)Yazata Wrote: Why do animals have hearts? In order to pump blood, of course! Why do animals have eyes? To see!!
J.B.S. Haldane once said, 'Teleology is like a mistress to biologists. They can't live without her, but they don't want to be seen with her in public."
Philosophers of biology disagree on whether teleological language and thought can be eradicated from biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology
(Dec 3, 2017 09:11 PM)Yazata Wrote: What role do functions play in biology? Biological explanations and theorizing seem to be hugely teleological. Is it possible to banish teleology from biology entirely?
This is something that I think about. I said once that there’s a reason why things happen but things do not happen for a reason.
Is there no progress or direction?
What did you think of James R’s answer?