Abstract
The extensive philosophical discussions and analyses in recent decades of function-talk in biology have done much to clarify what biologists mean when they ascribe functions to traits, but the basic metaphysical question-is there genuine teleology and design in the natural world, or only the appearance of this?-has persisted, as recent work both defending, and attacking, teleology from a Darwinian perspective, attest. I argue that in the context of standard contemporary evolutionary theory, this is for the most part a verbal, rather than a substantive dispute: the disputants are talking past one another. To justify this claim I develop a general framework within which reductionist views, such as the standard 'etiological' account of biofunctions, occupy an intermediate position between what I call full-blooded realism and full-blooded anti-realism, and suggest that whether such views count as 'realist' views has no objective, theory-neutral answer.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 859-880 |
| Journal | Foundations of Science |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 3 Jan 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2021 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Biological Teleology, Reductionism, and Verbal Disputes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver