Teleological Notions in Biology

[Redistribute the Rep]

What do you guys think:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Eta : http://www.filosofia.lettere.unipd.it/analitica/pdf/Neander1991b.pdf

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think function is not necessarily a teleological category. Obviously it can be used in a teleological manner, but it can also be used in a manner that is not teleological (in the sense that it implies some kind of backward causation with the final state influencing antecedent states). It simply picks out a behaviour of a part of the system that is important to understanding the system as a whole, to describe the system in terms of high-order concepts. For example, the photographic plates that were used to detect radioactivity functioned as gamma ray detectors, even though no one intended for them to be used in this manner, they weren't designed as such etc.

[Slavic]

I think that teleological explanations for why biological systems are the way they are, is just a quick and dirty way of explaining how a system functions outside of the context of its evolution.

You can say that the hawk's wings are designed so that it can maintain adequate velocity while diving for a kill. It would be assumed that such a quality of the hawk's wings are due to a long chain of passage of genetic traits which yielded a hawk with a wing designed suited for its needs.

In the current age, I see teleological notions of design as presupposing evolutionary mechanisms for producing said designs. It makes it easier to say, "The hawks wings are designed for constant velocity". As opposed to having to say, "Successful breeding of the hawk's ancestors led to a skeletal structure which promoted better velocity control."

If you start off with evolution as a predisposition, then teleological remarks can be made freely and make articles easier to read.

[Tim Cornelis]

What about teleology in Marxism? http://www.revleft.com/vb/teleological-notions-marxism-t192353/index.html?p=2821154#post2821154