Re: [asa] The Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis

I think what I'm suggesting is that the term teleology is being redefined. In the past people like Hempel have, it seems, tried to explain away teleology. But by doing so redefined it. The present "teleological evolution" appears different. They want to retain teleology as something real and distinct from something that is non-teleological.

What is lacking, as I see it, is a clear explication of what it is they are calling teleological. I don't think they would say, as Mike has, that it is in the mind of the beholder.

bill

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:52:09 -0400, "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
>
>
> I just saw Gregory nudging me to reply, so I thought I would oblige.
>
>
>
> You write:
>
>
>
> “My initial problem is with the use of the word telological.
>
> It seems that for some, at least, telology is in the eye of the
> beholder. To be able to discover certain laws or propensities that
> engender or favor certain biologies is not teleology. Because life may
> have evolved in atmospheres and resulted in many life forms flying is
> not telology, not at least as I define it.”
>
>
>
> To a large extent it is in the eye of the beholder. Since no one (in
> science or out of science) seems to possess a methodology to objectively
> detect teleology, how could it be otherwise? After all, recognizing
> teleology is akin to recognizing another mind.
>
>
>
> But as I see it, this is not the huge problem that many would think it to
> be. For one thing, it’s a problem that cuts both ways. For example,
> scientists originally used the concept of preadaptation, a concept many
> recognize(d) to have teleological connotations. Gould came along to do
> some metaphysical house-cleaning and replaced the term with exaptation.
> If a non-teleologist prefers to think of a preadaptation as an exaptation,
> then as you mentioned, it’s in the eye of the beholder. According to the
> individual beholder, either all preadaptations are really exaptations or
> some preadaptations truly are preadaptations (or nudges).
>
>
>
> My approach is to recognize that any “teleology detection” will
> necessarily have a subjective element to it. While this may mean such
> detection cannot ever rise to the level of science, it does not mean an
> investigation built around teleological assumptions is doomed and useless.
>
>
>
>
> BTW, I should mention that my original posting did not make any claim of
> detecting teleology. What I wrote was this: “And in one sense, this is
> understandable, as symbiogenesis, neutral theory, lateral gene transfer,
> and deep homology all open the door, even if slightly, to a teleological
> interpretation of evolution.”
>
>
>
> As I see it, the many advances in molecular and evolutionary biology that
> have occurred over the last several decades have made it easier, not
> harder, for the beholder to envision a teleological process. Easier, not
> harder. So what you then do is take that mental image, use it to
> formulate testable hypotheses, and explore the living world.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message --

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 28 23:44:48 2009