1

Ariew

Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments in Cosmology and Biology Andr Ariew University of Rhode Island1 ABSTRACT
Aristotles central argument for teleologythough not necessarily his conclusionis repeated in the teleological arguments of Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant, William Paley, and Charles Darwin. To appreciate Aristotles argument and its influence I assert, first, that Aristotles naturalistic teleology must be distinguished from Platos anthropomorphic one; second, the form of Aristotles arguments for teleology should be read as instances of inferences to the best explanation. On my reading, then, both Newtons and Paleys

teleological arguments are Aristotelian while their conclusions are Platonic. Kant and Darwins arguments are likewise Aristotelian while their conclusions are unique.

I would like to thank the following for comments on earlier drafts: Paul Bloomfield, Chris Stephens, David Buller, Julia Annas, Donald Zeyl, James Lennox, Mohan Matthen, Mark Perlman, Denis Walsh, John Beatty, Albert Silverstein, Galen Johnson, and the audience participating in the History of Science colloquium at the University of Minnesota where this paper was presented in September of 2000. I thank John Beatty for inviting me to give the colloquium. Special thanks goes to Slobodan Zunjich for greatly influencing my views and providing me extensive comments on many drafts. I could not have written this paper without his help.

Ariew

0.

Intro The authors contributing to this anthology focus on a variety of issues

concerning functional explanations in both biology and psychology. Functional explanation is our chosen term because teleological explanation is thought to imply backwards causation or bizarre ontological categories (e.g. vital forces) attributable to the teleological theories of Plato and Aristotle. Functional explanation is not so imbued and hence, as opposed to teleology, is an appropriate topic for naturalistic analysis. However, scholars of ancient Greek science and metaphysics know that Aristotles and Platos teleologies are richer and more interesting than many of the writers on modern functional explanation realize. Between Aristotles and Platos writings are found several different categories of teleology, only some of which invoke bizarre metaphysical entities, and several powerful arguments for the legitimacy of teleological explanation in biology. There is considerable disagreement about the relation between teleological explanation and functional explanation. Consider Woodfields influential remark that teleological explanations are part of the domain of purposive behavior while functional explanations are part of the larger domain of system analysis (Woodfield 1976). The distinction has no clear support, however in the writings of Aristotle from which the modern concept of functional explanation takes root. According to Aristotles schema, functional explanations are a subset of teleological ones. Most importantly, insofar as Aristotles teleology pertains to explanations of natural items, it is misleading to cast-off Aristotles teleology as reading purposive behavior into natural events. This perception of Aristotles teleology is the result of conflating Aristotles naturalistic teleology with Platos. As I will discuss in this essay, Platos natural teleology is and Aristotles is not creationist, anthropomorphic, externally evaluative, and invokes the concept of the good. Aristotles natural teleology is and Platos is not naturalistic, immanent and functional. Aristotles central mode of argument for both artifactual and natural teleology is an inference to the best explanation: teleology best explains facts about the organic world. We shall see arguments of this type in three separate

3
discussions within Aristotles Physics, bk. II. Both the distinction between Platos teleology and Aristotles natural teleology is worth revisiting because (and here are my three theses for this essay): 1. Both Aristotles and Platos teleology arguments are more sophisticated than historially and currently presented. 2. Many teleology arguments in post-18th century science are

Ariew

variants on Aristotles inferences to the best explanations while the conclusions are Platonic. I will demonstrate this dualism in the works of Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant, and William Paley. 3. Once we strip away Platonic teleology from Aristotles inferences to the best explanation the question, to what extent was Darwin a teleologist? can be answered plainly: Darwin endorsed a subset of Aristotles teleology. 1. Aristotelian vs. Platonic Teleology

1.1 Aristotles teleology. Teleological explanation in Aristotle pertains broadly to goal-directed actions or behavior. Aristotle invokes teleology when an event or action pertains to goals: that for the sake of which (e.g. Phys II 194b32). Following David Charles (1995; with some modification) we can distinguish two distinct conceptions of teleology in Aristotles writings and at least two sets of subcategories:

I.

Agency-centered Teleology (i) Behavioral. Activities undertaken done for the sake of something,

which may be either a state or further action. (ii) Artifactual. Activities undertaken for the sake of producing an

object of a certain sort (artifact). II. Teleology pertaining to natural organisms (iii) Formal. Biological developmental processes which occur for the

sake of self-preservation or preservation of the species. (iii) Functional. Parts of organisms that are present for the sake of the

organism possessing them.

Ariew

I and II are distinct notions of teleology: Aristotle should have used two words to distinguish them. Agent-specific teleology (I) is purposive, rational, intentional, and represents an external evaluation. The goal is the object of an agents desire or choice. In behavioral teleology (i) actions are done out of the desire to produce a goal, e.g., walking is for the sake of health. In artifactual teleology (ii) the object (artifact) is produced for the sake of achieving some goal, e.g. building a house to shelter oneself. Agents are aware of the means to fulfill the goal (Charles 1995, 107). To explain why a builder builds a house or to explain why doctors do what they do, we can cite their goal: a builder builds for the sake of shelter and a doctor doctors for the sake of health. Teleology pertaining to natural organisms is distinct: non-purposive (though seemingly so), non-rational, non-intentional, and immanent, i.e. an inner principle of change. The goal is not an object of any agents desire. In formal teleology (iii) the telos is an inherent property of the process to complete the organisms developmental endstate as seen in the form of the species (Zunjich, pers. com.). For example, plants require nourishment for selffulfillment of the (species) form. So, roots extend downwards rather than upwards for the sake of nourishment (199a29). In functional teleology (iv) the telos is inherent in the relationship between the part of the organism in question and the whole organism. For example, sharp teeth are in the front of the mouth for the sake of tearing (199b24). Sharp teeth contribute to the flourishing of organisms possessing them. Put more strongly, carnivores flourish because they possess sharp teeth. This is consistent with the form of functional explanation that many authors in this volume accept: sharp teeth persist in nature among carnivores because they contribute to the flourishing of carnivores. In neither (iii) nor (iv) is the telos a conscious goal of the organism. Nor is the goodness of the process a part of the explanation for what occurs. Roots are not aware that it is good to grown downwards. Rather, a consequence of roots growing downwards is that plants flourish; those that dont dont flourish. I summarize the differences in the following chart (influenced by Lennox 1992).

Answer to: why is X there?

Awareness of means to goal

Valuation

5
Agents I(i), I(ii) In terms of whats good Contributes to the development of the organism according to its form (species). Contributes to self-flourishing Agent is aware and flexible to change means Unaware and inflexible to change means Deliberate, external

Ariew

Organic development II(iii)

None. Goal is in the form of the species.

Natural objects II(iv)

Unaware and inflexible to change means

None. Goal is property of relation between part and organism.

The roots of agency-based teleology (I) are found in the writings of Plato while teleology pertaining to natural organisms (II) is Aristotles own. Next, I compare Platos and Aristotles teleology. Then, I examine the three central Aristotelian arguments for teleology that I claim is at the core of many teleological arguments throughout history, despite the Platonic conclusions of many of them. 1.2. Platos Teleology In the Phaedo Plato recounts Socrates criticisms of the Pre-Socratics for missing the real cause of the orderly arrangements of natural phenomena. Anaxagoras explains the orderly arrangements of the cosmos by means of mechanistic principles of motion of matter such as air, water and ether. Simple material motions are what Anaxagoras take to be the Reason for the motion in the cosmos. Socrates is unsatisfied. He expected Anaxagoras to explain how the natural order was the best of possible world orders. The difference is captured in asking the analogous question, Why does Socrates sit in prison? While facts about physiology, the composition of bones and sinews and their arrangements, offer a complete explanation of his current position in prison, the explanation is unsatisfactory for it does not provide the real reason for Socratess predicament. Socrates remains in prison because remaining rather than escaping is what Socrates deems the best course of action. Reference to the simple motion does not capture best intentions.

Ariew

In the Timaeus, Plato takes up Socrates challenge to provide an account of why the cosmos was created for the best. Again, reference to simple motions provides a complete explanation of the orderly arrangement of the heavens. However, it is necessary to take account of the good if we want to fully understand the order of the heavens (Morrow 1950, p. 425). The true cause is agency working for the best.

This ordered world is of mixed birth; it is the offspring of a union of Necessity and Intellect. Intellect prevailed over Necessity by persuading it to direct most of the things that come to be toward what is best, and the result of this subjugation of Necessity to wise persuasion was the initial formation of this universe (Timaeus, 48a trans by Zeyl). Agency is constrained by both goodness and in the materials available. For example, while spheres may be the finest shape possible, other shapes are used in nature because the sphere has already been used for the body of the cosmos (Strange, p. 28). It is important to note the distinctions between Platos teleology and Aristotles. Each is influenced by a different cosmology. For Plato the universe is an artifact, as are the living organisms within (thus subsuming Aristotles III and IV into I(ii)). The demiurge is the general cause of all motion, including motion on earth. Aristotle fundamentally distinguishes between the cause of motion in the heavens and the cause of motion on earth. The heavens are incorruptible. The primary motion of the sun, stars, and planets are circularthe natural tendency of the distinctly heavenly element, ether. In contrast, earth (or rather the sub-lunar realm) is corruptible, with motions described in terms of the natural tendencies of the distinctly earthly elements, fire, air, water, and earth. None of these elements tend to circular motion. However, the distinction between heavenly and earthly motion has a caveat: the circular movement of the sun, stars, planets, cause the earths seasons which exerts a general influence upon growth on earth (Balme 1987, p. 277). For Platos teleology, the striving towards good depends on a standard of excellence in the forms. The artifacts of the universe (including the living organisms therein) are created after the model of the forms. Hence the standard of excellence that drives the striving towards the good is external to

Ariew

the object itself. Aristotles teleology is immanent, not external to the object. Organic development is an activation of a particular potentiality as seen in the form of the species to which the individual belongs. That activation is not external to the individual but is an inner principle of change (Phys. II, ch.1) Consequently, on Aristotles account, while humans are sensitive to the means by which they attain their particular goals, there is no explicit requirement that the goal is best for the individuals requirements. Platos and Socrates teleology is stronger in that actions are always for the best (Annas, 1982, p. 314). I summarize the distinction between Aristotles and Platos teleology in the following chart.

Cosmology Plato Creator (demiurge) governs all motion. Distinct motions for heavens and earth.

Source of change External model

Valuation Action is for the best (from a cosmological point of view). Action or part is useful to individual.

Aristotle (both agent and organismal)

An inner principle of change (Immanent).

2.

Aristotles Arguments against the Materialist

2.1 Aristotles argument from flourishing. All of the Aristotles arguments for teleology we will consider are pitted against the materialist conception that, roughly, materials and their necessary causes are sufficient to explain all physical events. Material necessity refers to a physical event that is the result of the nature of the matter involved as opposed to being interfered with by some external force (Cooper 1987, p. 260). Aristotle agrees with the materialist that citing the materials and their causal interactions suffice for the explanation for some physical events. For example, the reason why the sky rains is due to the material necessity of sky and water: what is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend 198b19-20). The must refers to the natural unimpeded

Ariew

regularities of the sky.2 Further, in the case that the rain spoils a mans crop (on the threshing floor), the spoilage comes as a result of rains natural tendency to come out of the sky. Rain does not fall for the sake of spoiling a mans crop; the result is due to both the material necessity of rainfall and the unfortunate placement of the crop. In other words, Aristotle accepts the abductive inference from the observational fact (O) of the particular occurrence of rain spoiling a mans crop to the hypothesis (H(materialist)) that the observation is a coincidence.

O: Rain falls. H(materialist): nature and motion of simple bodies.

According to Aristotle H(materialist) sufficiently explains O. Further, in the case of:

O: Rain falls and spoils a mans crop H(materialist): coincidence.

Aristotle agrees that the H(materialist) sufficiently explains O. That is, coincidence sufficiently accounts for the relationship between rainfall and spoilage of a mans crop. However, Aristotle contends that coincidence is not sufficient to explain all events.3 Consider the dental arrangement of humans and some animals: sharp teeth grow in front and broad molars in the back. Aristotle asks what accounts for the fact that carnivores possessing this particular dental arrangement (nearly) invariably prosper whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish (cite). Since the materialist denies that natural events occur for the sake of some end they would have to accept that the usefulness of the dental

Pace Furley (1985). Furley believes that Aristotle rejects the materialist view at all levels. I prefer the interpretation presented here which is probably more mainstream. However, my main concern is Aristotles argument for teleology so not a lot rides on this controversy for me. 3 More precisely, Aristotle argues that the materialist claim that events that do not occur by the nature and movements of simple bodies occur by chance insufficiently explains certain natural processes (Charles, ??).

Ariew

arrangements occur as a coincidental result of the material necessity of dental matter. The situation is essentially no different than the mans crop spoiling due to rainfall. By Aristotles lights, there is a difference: evidence that particular dental arrangements are useful to the organism comes from the fact it is a regular occurrence in living nature. It happens nearly invariably; organisms with different dental arrangements nearly always die. So, the proper explanation is that sharp teeth grow in front and broad molars in the back for the sake of an organisms flourishing. The goal is inherent in the nature of growth. Unlike the case of rain, where Aristotle accepted as coincidence the relation between rain and crop spoilage, Aristotle cannot accept as coincidence the fact that organisms possessing sharp teeth in front and broad molars in the back invariably flourish while organisms possessing alternative arrangements invariably die. The latter phenomenon is better explained by teleology: possessing sharp teeth in front and broad molars in the back occurs for the sake of the organism flourishing. That is, teleology can be abductively inferred from the fact that the dental arrangements regularly contribute to the flourishing of individuals possessing them. To schematize (redefining the variables O and H accordingly):

O: Sharp teeth growing in front and broad molars in back regularly lead to the flourishing of carnivores possessing that arrangement. O: Alternative dental arrangements lead to the death of carnivores possessing the alternative. H (materialist): What does not occur by simple movement occurs by chance. The difference between O and O is by chance. H (teleologist): The difference between O and O is that for carnivores, a particular dental arrangement (sharp teeth in front, broad molars in back) occurs for the sake of flourishing. Aristotle argues that H (materialist) insufficiently accounts for the difference between O and O while H (teleology) sufficiently accounts for the difference between O and O.

10

Ariew

I will refer to this Aristotelian argument as the argument from flourishing. 2.2. Aristotles argument from regularity. In Physics II.9 Aristotle strengthens his argument against the materialist by providing an alternative explanatory scheme. In addition to the nature and movement of simple bodies (material necessity) and chance, Aristotle offers a third mode of explanation: hypothetical necessity.4 What is hypothetical necessity? Take eyelids for example. Eyelids are flaps of skin that protect eyes from easy external penetration. According to Aristotle the eyelid materialthe flaps of skinare necessary for the sake of eye protection. The necessity referenced here is called hypothetical necessity: it is a constraint on materials given the specific purpose for which the part will be used. Not any material will do for the sake of eye protection, only eyelid material given the specific form of eye protection that humans and other animals require. This is meant to be taken strongly: the actual materials that compose an organ is required for the completion of the process where completion is the goal of development. Put differently, if there had not been a need for eye protection there would not have been materials present to form eyelids (Cooper 1987, p. 255). The concept of hypothetical necessity makes clear the relationship between functional (iv) teleology and formal (iii) teleology. Consider the example: eyelid material is present for the sake of eye protection (thats the function of eyelid material). So, eyelid material has a functional role (iii) to play in the growth of eye protection. Further, eye protection is necessary for seeing, and seeing occurs for the sake of the organisms growth (iv). The necessity is granted to matter, eyelids, and is conditional in that it contributes to the goal of natural growth. Eyelid material contributes to natural growth by affording eye protection, which itself is crucial for the function of seeing (Cooper 1987). Hypothetical necessity is inherent in actions pertaining to deliberate agents as well (Charles 1988, p. 119). In such a case hypothetical necessity

11

Ariew

explains why some action has been taken or why some object has been created. These occur because of the agents goal. In this case the agent is aware of the goodness of the action or object as a means to the goal. I follow John Cooper (Cooper 1987) in viewing Aristotles argument for hypothetical necessity in terms of an inference to the best explanation for regularities of processes. To make the case stronger let us switch examples to the development of a newborn from sperm, egg, and the usual background developmental conditions. Accordingly, the materialist cannot account for how these materials conspire to produce fetuses (nearly) every time. In other words, by appeal to simple motion and material cause, materialists cannot fundamentally distinguish between: 1. Physical forces that are unconstrained to produce a range of different possible outcomes; and 2. Physical forces that (nearly) always result in the same producta newborn. The materialists only recourse is an appeal to coincidence. Aristotles reply is that coincidence is insufficient to account for the regularity of the conjugation seen in organic development because chance operates only in unusual circumstances (198b35-199a3). The principle of hypothetical necessity better explains the regularity of development: the materials are there for the sake of producing the conjugation that leads to the development of newborns.

O: sperm and egg invariably conjugate to produce newborns.

H(materialist): accident H(teleologist): hypothetical necessity. H(teleologist) better explains the regularity by which we observe organic development because accidents are rare in nature. On Aristotles account, materials are, so to speak (in Coopers words) the seat of the necessity (Cooper, 1987, 255). However, these material arrangements are conditional on the production of newborns being something
4

One might argue that hypothetical necessity refers to a teleology that does not invoke the final aitia. Slobodan Zunjich pers. com.

12

Ariew

that occurs in nature. In this way goal is prior to matter (Charles 1995, 121fn). That is, sperm and egg do cause the goal of producing newborns, however, the goal of newborns is not there because of the sperm and egg. Quite the opposite: if newborns are to exist (and they do by nature) then sperm and egg and the process that leads them have to exist. That is what it means that sperm and eggs have to exist for the sake of newborns. Well refer to this argument for hypothetical necessity as the argument from regularity. 2.3 Aristotles Argument from pattern. Finally, it is worth considering a third inference to the best explanation Aristotle employs to support the irreducibility of teleology in explanation. This time Aristotle recognizes that the same teleological scheme applies to explain a particular sort of organization that regularly occurs both within human action and in the non-human natural world. The organization he has in mind is exemplified in the following cases: housebuilding, leaves growing to shade fruit, roots descending for nourishment (rather than rising), nestbuilding in birds, and webmaking in spiders. In all of these cases we recognize a certain pattern of arrangement and sequential order. For example, in development of an artifact (such as housebuilding) or in nature (as in roots descending downwards) all the steps of development occur in sequence which lead up to the final state. Further, parts of an object that contribute to some whole effect are situated to contribute to the whole effect (Charles 1995, p. 115). These patterns do not happen by accident. Rather they occur in every instance where the relevant organization is found, e.g., in the intentional production of artifacts (housebuilding) or the non-deliberate formation of natural objects (webmaking, nestmaking, roots descending, leaves shading fruit). It is in this respect that Aristotle famously remarks that as in art, so in nature (Phys. 199a9-10) and as in nature, so in art (199a15-16). The same pattern that explains certain organizations found in nature also explains the same organizations found in artifacts (Charles 1995, p. 115). This certain organization is just goal-directed activity. Aristotle infers teleology from patterns of order and arrangement. Well call this the argument from pattern.

13

Ariew

To strengthen this argument, Aristotle presents the first instance where teleology preserves a distinction between function and accident, except for Aristotle the term is a mistake.5 Mistakes occur when one of the stages required to achieve the goal has failed to complete its role in the production of the goal. Mistakes occur, for example, when a doctor pours the wrong dosage or when a man miswrites or when monstrosities such as man-headed oxprogeny or olive-headed vine-progeny develop. The same teleological pattern whereby each stage of development occurs in order for the sake of the goal allows us to explain the difference between what occurs by art or nature on the one hand or by mistake on the other. What occurs by art or nature follows the pattern successfully while mistakes or the creation of monsters feature a failed developmental stage. On the face of it, Aristotle presupposes teleology in order to explain it. If so, Aristotle is guilty of circular reasoning. However, on closer inspection, Aristotle does not commit the fallacy. Teleology is not part of the explanandum, orderliness and functional relationships are. Contrast orderliness among the normal beings with disorder found in monstrosities. The difference is explained teleologically. The inference is something like the following:

O(nature): Orderly developmental patterns occur by nature.

O(nature): Disorderly developmental patterns lead to mistakes or monstrosities. Analogously,

O(artifact): Orderly creative procedures lead to functional artifacts.

O(artifact): Disorderly creative procedures lead to mistakes.

H(materialist): All phenomena are explained according to the same materialistic principles. There is no essential difference in their explanation.

The function/accident distinction is crucial for modern day teleology. See Walsh and Ariew (1996) for a discussion.

14
H(teleologist): Orderly patterns occur for the sake of the form while monstrosities do not.

Ariew

The teleological explanation better explains what distinguishes O from O. According to Aristotle, the materialists cannot explain what goes wrong when mistakes occur or what goes right when developed or created things work. So far Ive spent much of this essay explicating Aristotles teleology arguments and distinguishing between Aristotles localized teleology from Platos global, divine agent-centered teleology. After Aristotle, a pattern in teleological arguments emerges: a variation of one of Aristotles three types of teleological argument is put forward in support for the existence of a Platonic divine agent. Aquinas exemplifies the melding of two teleologies whereby regularity of pattern is offered as evidence of design. As Ron Amundson so aptly puts it, In Aquinass time it was easy to move from always acts the same to acts for an end, and thence to achieves the best result (Amundson 1996, p. 16). The distinguishing Aristotelian feature is the move from always acts the same to acts for an end. The extra inference is Platonic and explains why the end achieves the best result. Later on we see this same pattern in teleological arguments from Newton, Whewell, Paley, Kant, and Darwin. Commentators have failed to appreciate this pattern in their interpretation of post-Aristotelian teleological arguments for many reasons. First, they often interpret what Ive been calling teleological arguments as arguments from design. The latter argument infers the existence of a creator to explain purpose in nature. While I do not doubt that such arguments have been offered in history we should recognize that the inference from purpose to agent is poor. Teleological explanations are supposed to be contrasted with material explanations. A materialist thinks that there are no purposes in nature to explain. So, an inference from purpose begs the question that purpose exists and requires an explanation. None of Aristotles three arguments, the argument from flourishing, the argument from regularity, and the argument from pattern, beg the question against the materialist. In each, Aristotle infers teleology from the relevant factor, flourishing, regularity in development, or patterns of order and arrangement. For one example (to refresh our memories), Aristotle argues that dental arrangements are useful,

15

Ariew

and hence grow for the sake of their usefulness, because those carnivores that possess the particular dental arrangement tend to prosper while those that do not, die. I hope to demonstrate that the more careful teleologists follow Aristotles lead. A second reason why commentators fail to appreciate the sophistication of teleological arguments is that some appear to hold that the key feature of a teleological argument is the analogy between human artifacts and natural designs (e.g. Hurlbutt 1965, p. 14). As we have seen, such analogies are neither a distinguishing featurethere are other sorts of teleological argumentsnor, in the case that such arguments are presented, are they primarily an argument from analogy. Aristotles argument that features the analogy is an inference to the best explanation and not an argument from analogy. In arguments from analogy, a feature ascribed to a target subject is ascribed to an analogue. The strength of the analogy depends on the degree to which the analog resembles the target. For example, we might think that since dog biology resembles human biology that since humans have a circulatory system dogs do too. We do not evaluate an inference to the best explanation in the same way. There is no comparison between targets and analogs. Instead, an inference to the best explanation begins with an observation and considers which hypothesis offered might explain the observation. Again, Aristotles three arguments for teleology features the inference to the best explanation schema. Finally, many commentators dismiss Aristotelian teleology as it is purported to ascribe fishy vital forces or bizarre backwards causation to nature. However, I think this is the biggest misreading of Aristotle. First, as I mentioned above, there are good reasons to think that Aristotles final aitia are not causes but reasons or explanations. Of course, on this reading, there is an open question whether Aristotle thought that his final aitia corresponded to irreducible ontological properties of the world above that of material causes, or whether he viewed them as useful forms of explanations.6 Nevertheless, even if one holds that final aitia are ontologically irreducible to material causes, it

I follow many commentators in thinking that final aitia do pick out an ontological category distinguished from material causation. Aristotle most likely would have thought that human intentionality was not reducible to material causes. And, likewise, organic development (growth) is irreducible to causal laws of motion.

16
doesnt follow that these irreducible properties are forward-looking,

Ariew

intentional vital forces. A vital force is a force that drives a causal process. Picking one out would be to pick out the source of motion or developmental change. However, on Aristotles account of explanation to attribute this role to final aitia would be to collapse the distinction between final aitia and efficient causes (Gotthelf and Lennox, 1987, p. 199). It is the latter, causal aitia that picks out the source of change. 3. 3.1 Cosmological teleology Newton Centuries later Aristotles teleological arguments reappear in inferences to explain the order that govern the motions in the cosmos. Ironically, Isaac Newton, who is best known for his mechanistic physics, employs an Aristotelian teleology inference. Truth is, Newton was not a thorough-going proponent of a mechanical universe. In a letter to Richard Bentley, Newton lists a number of questions that he thinks the mechanical sciences cannot answer, including:

What is there in places almost empty of matter, and whence is it that the sun and planets gravitate towards one another, without dense matter between them? To what end are comets; and whence is it that planets move all in one the same way in orbs concentrick, while comets move all manner of ways in orbs very excentrick; and what hinders the fixed stars from falling upon one another? How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts? Opera Omnia, IV, 237) Newton presents evidence for teleology in both the motions of the solar systemcosmological teleologyand in the adaptability of living organisms to their environmentsbiological teleology. In a revealing passage, Newton remarks on the ontology of gravity: Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers (Amundson 1996). This clearly leaves room for teleology in Newtons cosmology. But so far these passages are negative; they state the limitations of mechanical sciences (Hurlbutt 1965, p. 7). A hint of a positive teleological argument comes later in Newtons letter to Bentley:

17

Ariew

To make this system, therefore, with all its motions, required a cause which understood, and compared together, the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets, and the gravitating powers resulting from thence; the several distances of the primary planets from the sun, and of the secondary ones from Saturn, Jupiter, and the Earth; and the velocities, with which these planets could revolve about those quantities of matter in the central bodies; and to compare and adjust all these things together in so great and variety of bodies, argues that cause to be not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanicks and geometry (Opera Omnia, IV, p. 431-2. Quoted in Hurlbutt, p. 7). Newtons argument is similar to Aristotles inference from pattern. Accordingly, the stable motions of the heavens depend on a singular arrangement of planet sizes, distances, number, and position. Implied here is that if the system were arranged haphazardly, i.e., by blind chance, its balance would have been compromised. Hence blind and fortuitous causes do not explain the origins of the universes stable motions. Rather, the delicate balance we see in the solar system suggests a creative origin: an act of intelligent design.

O: The solar system exhibits a balanced arrangement of variously sized planets. O (counterfactual): Had the arrangement been haphazard, the balance would not exist.

The best inference is teleological: the arrangments exist for the sake of the balance. However, as we see, Newton goes a step further and postulates the existence of a skilled designer. So, while Newtons argument resembles Aristotle, the conclusion is Platos. The telos is the intention of a skilled designer. Newton knew that the harmony and stability of the solar system has exceptions in the orbital speeds of Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiters speed was accelerating while Saturns was decelerating. Newton argued in the Optics that the solar system would fall apart, the stability compromised, unless the orbital speeds of Jupiter and Saturn were adjusted. Perhaps, Newton hypothesized (despite the fact that Newton famously despised hypotheses) comets played the adjustment role (Amundson, p. 18). If so, the eccentric motion of the comets would be explained: they restore stability in the solar system. So, there is an

18

Ariew

interesting difference between Platos demiurge and Newtons divine creator. While Platos demiurge created in a single act, Newtons God intervened with its creation. 3.2 The Death Knell of Cosmological Teleology LaPlace eventually solved the problem of the exceptional orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, demonstrating that the orbits would eventually reverse creating an oscillation that is stable in the long run (Amundson, p. 20). Consequentially, there was less of a motivation to think that the eccentric orbits of the comets had the purpose to adjust the solar system since the exceptional orbits of Saturn and Jupiter were self-correcting. Worse for Newtons teleology, LaPlace put forward the hypothesis that the solar system coalesced from nubular clouds. If correct, this would explain the origins of the solar system without reference to an intelligent designer. Yet, cosmological teleology dies hard. As Whewell argued, LaPlaces Nebular Hypothesis for the origins of the solar system merely forced the issue of origins back a step. Accordingly, were left with an open question of what accounts for the laws that govern the coalescing of nubulae. This opens the door again for teleology: What but design and intelligence prepared and tempered this previously existing element, so that it should by its natural changes produce such an orderly system? (Whewell, quoted in Amundson, p. 21). Spinoza despised such arguments, calling them arguments ad ignorantiam. Underhill (1904) captures the spirit of Spinozas disdain nicely:

a tile falls from a roof on a mans head and kills him: the tile, they argue, must have fallen on purpose to kill him. Otherwise, if it had not been Gods will, how could all the cicumstances have concurred just then and there? You may answer: It happened because the wind blew and the man was passing that way. They will urgeWhy did the wind blow and why did the man pass that way just at that time? If you suggest fresh reasons, they will ask similar questions, because there is no end of such questioning, until you take refuge in that ignorantiae asylum, the will of God (p. 224). As a consequence of LaPlaces work, the popularity of cosmological teleology waned while the popularity of biological teleology waxed. The cosmos

19

Ariew

lacked a means/end patterning from which teleology could be inferred. Recall Aristotles argument from pattern whereby evidence for teleological principles is found in particular orderly arrangements of developmental phenomena such as in organic development of adapted organisms or the creation of human artifacts. The last gasp of cosmological teleology seized on that pattern in the correlations between organic cycles and astronomical time period (Amundson, p. 21). Just as Aristotle considered thousands of years before, Whewell argued that the correspondence between the solar year and the vegetative growth cycle suggested, not chance, but intentional adjustment (Whewell 1836, p. 26). 4. Biological teleology The remaining figures we will consider, Kant, Paley, and Darwin, apply teleology to biological explanations as opposed to cosmological explanations. Again, the Aristotelian influences on these figures is striking. Of the three, only Paley will endorse a Platonic telos. 4.1 Kant Kant distinguishes two sorts of causation, mechanical and teleological. Mechanical causes exhibit a progressive series of causes preceding their effects. Teleological causes exhibit both a progressive and regressive series of causal chains whereby effects both precede and proceed from their causes. An effect can be the cause of its preceding cause. Regressive cause and effect chains are most clearly represented in purposive human behavior. For example, the existence of a house is the cause of rental income, yet the representation of the income is the cause of building the house in the first place (Butts 1990, p. 5). Kant concludes (a sketch of the argument is below) that the processes of nature can only be understood teleologically. Interestingly, the telos Kant ascribes to nature is meant to be distinct from the telos ascribed to human purposive behavior. Kant is being careful to avoid the Platonic conclusion that natural processes serve useful ends as evaluated from on high. Rather, natural telos is immanent, in rerum natura, very much in the mold of Aristotles

20

Ariew

natural telology. So, when final causes are ascribed to human behavior they refer to utilityas in iron is useful to ship-building; when final causes are ascribed to natural processes they refer to internal, biological ends. What is Kants argument for the existence of these biological internal ends? Kants answer is consistent with his general epistemology: to understand nature we must view it as if nature is rational and acts for practical ends. That is not to say that nature is rational but that nature acts as a rational analogue to a living being (Butts, p. 7). I take Kants argument so far to be similar to half of Aristotles argument from pattern: the same pattern that explains organizations found in human activity is the same pattern that explains organization in nature. I say this is half of Aristotles argument from pattern because Aristotles argument works both ways, as in art, so in nature and as in nature, so in art. The pattern Kant sees as in art, so in nature is the progressive and regressive causal series. Where in nature is that pattern evident? The answer: in self-preserving activity. Kant considers three ways in which a tree may be regarded as an end to itself or internal end (quoted in Underhill, 226).

(1) Phylogenetic. Reproduction begets organisms that resemble a generic kind (i.e. species). The kind is both the effect of continued generic existence and the cause of reproduction. (2) Individual Growth. Growth is more than increase in size according to mechanical laws, for individuals deviate from their generic form to secure their own self-preservation under particular circumstances. This leads to originality in individual design unequalled in art. (3) Functional part/whole relations. Parts of animals form in a way that the maintenance of any one part depends reciprocally on the maintenance of the rest.

Note, Kants conclusion is stronger than the argument from pattern I presented above. According to Kant we must necessarily think of nature as designed. Thats what Kant means when he remarked that it would be absurd to expect that another Newton will arise in the future who will make even the production

21

Ariew

of a blade of grass understandable by us according to natural laws which no design has ordered (quoted in Beatty 1990, p. 54). (I find the reference to Newton ironic given our discussion above.) The remaining steps of Kants argument, I think, are unAristotelian hence beyond the scope of this essay. My point has been to point out the Aristotelian kernel of Kants biology. First, his distinction between external and internal ends reflects nicely Aristotles own distinction between what I called Agent-centered and Natural teleology. Second, Kants argument for ascribing telos in nature resembles Aristotles argument from pattern. Finally, reflect on Kants remarks on growth (above). Kant recognized that mechanical principles are necessary to understand some parts of animal formation but mechanical principles alone cannot explain the individuality of growth. We explain the latter by reference to the self-preserving (teleological) activities of an individual organism. Aristotle would have been proud. 4.2 Paley and Darwin Darwin is often thought to have brought the demise of teleological thinking in biology (Ghiselin 1969, Mayr 1988). But since the concept of telos is so packed with different meanings it unclear what sort of teleology Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection rejected. Darwin himself unabashedly utilized the concept of a final cause in his Species Notebooks and even in the Origin of Species itself (Lennox, 1993, p. 410, 411). Elsewhere in an illuminating exchange between Asa Gray and Darwin, Asa Gray commented, Darwins great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology: so that instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology (quoted in Lennox, 1993 p. 409). In response, Darwin wrote, What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do not think anyone else has ever noticed the point (quoted in Lennox, p. 409). The issue here is to what extent did Darwin reject teleology and to what extent did he support it?7 The key is to clearly distinguish between what Ive been calling Platonic and Aristotelian teleology. A Platonic telos is an agent which operates or creates
7

The question, whether or not Darwin was a teleologist, has been asked ever since Darwin first made his natural theories public. For contemporary views, see Beatty (1990), Beatty (19??), Lennox (1993), Ghesilin (199?), Mayr (1961), Ayala (1968)

22

Ariew

purposively for the sake of the best.8 An Aristotelian telos is a property of an individuals functioningits contribution to its own sustainability. One way to interpret the significance of Darwins theory to teleology is to view Darwins theory as a rejection of Platonic agency as the cause of natural phenomena. Rather than appealing to a divine creator with a good plan, Darwin appealed to facts about nature. This interpretation arises when we view Darwins theory as an answer to, in particular, William Paleys argument from design. As we shall see, both Paleys argument and Darwins response are plausibly seen as applications of Aristotles teleology. 4.3 Paley. William Paley (1828) asks us to consider what we would infer about the presence of a watch lying on a heath. How did the watch come to exist? Had we found a stone rather than a watch, it would suffice to infer that the stone had laid on the heath forever. However, that answer is not applicable to the watch, for watches, as opposed to stones, exhibit a particular organization, a singular order in the way its component parts are put together such that the hands move in accordance to time:

For this reason, and for no other, viz. That, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day (p. 5). If the watch were composed in any other manner, had its parts been shaped or sized differently the hands would not move in the same way (or not at all). Many commentators ignore this Aristotelian component of Paleys argument: the contrast between the functioning and malfunctioning watch depends on the arrangements of the parts of the object:

that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would
8 Von Baer thought Platonic teleology was misleading and even silly. He blamed the association of Platonic teleology (he called it theological teleology) for much of the teleophobia.

23

Ariew

have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. (p. 5). Paley infers purpose in the watchs intricate composition. This purpose is the rational intention of a creator. Schematically, Paleys inference is as follows:9

O: A particular assemblage produces motion.

O: Deviations of the assemblage results in no motion.

H(designer): The assemblage is purposeful (put together by a designer).

It is important to note that Paleys inference does not depend on prior observations of watches being made by watch-makers.10 Rather, Paley infers the existence of an intentional designer from the watchs complexity, arrangement, intricacies and well-suitedness to the completion of certain tasks (Sober cite). The key point, what well call the inferential step, is that certain patterns in artifacts suggest design and the existence of a designer. The pattern is exibited when the artifacts effect requires a particular arrangement or order in its parts. Had the artifact exhibited any other order it would likely not have produced its wondrous effects. As Paley writes, Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind (p. 10). Next, Paley applies the same inference to an object with extraordinary complexity, a watch that, in addition to ability to track time, is capable of selfreplication. Now, the parts are more complex, and the order of parts more crucial. The most obvious inference is, according to Paley, a designer with
I realize that the passage above, where Paley writes, we perceivethat its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose suggests a different reading than the one I offered, namely that Paley observes a purpose rather than inferring one. However, I think Paleys supporting examples are meant to be taken as evidence for what Paley perceives. If I am wrong, that is, if the proper way to read the passage is that Paley infers a creator from the purpose he perceives rather than from the pattern of assemblage, then Paleys argument begs the question against the materialist who perceives no purpose in nature. 10Paley writes: Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion, that we had never seen a watch madethat we had never known an artist capable of making oneIgnorance of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown artists skill, if he be unseen and unknown, but
9

24
extraordinary abilities. Lets call this additional step in the argument, the

Ariew

increasing order of complexity: the more complex the organization, the more complex the design, the more cunning the creator. Finally, Paley applies both the inferential step and the increasing order of complexity to account for living things. As with the existence of the watch and the self-replicating watch, creatures and organs of the natural world demonstrate a super-extraordinary complexity, order, and arrangement. The only rational inference is a designer of sufficient intelligence and purpose. That designer must be God, according to Paley. Much of the rest of Paleys book is an ode to the complexity and intricacies found in nature. Many commentators take Paley to infer a creator from purpose found in objects. Paley writes, above, that we perceive that parts of the watch are put together for a purpose. I dont read the inference the same way. If it were so, then the argument would be question-beggingpresupposing purpose to infer teleology. Rather, I take the inference to be similar to Aristotles analogy between artifacts and nature (Sober 2000). Paleys inferential step is similar to Aristotles analogy between artifacts and nature. Recall, Aristotle inferred teleology from patterns of order and arrangement. The endstates depend on previous parts in an appropriate position to contribute to the whole. If these arrangements are not present either development shuts down, or the organization fails to produce a particular effect (mistakes). Paleys telological inference runs the same way, from particular order and arrangments for both nature and artificial contrivances. Yet, Paleys telos is an agent, a designer with intentions to create the best possible world while Aristotles is immanent and relativerelative to organisms in their surroundings. Paleys goodness is global. Purpose is in the good intentions of a creator that has created the best possible cosmos. Paleys telos is clearly in the mold of Platos demiurge. Since Paleys teleology is much stronger than Aristotles both in the concept of striving for the best and in globalizing the perspective, Paleys inference requires the additional inference, the increasing order of complexity. While Aristotles inference recognizes a

raises no doubt in our minds of the existence and agency of such an artist, at some former time and in some place or other. (p. 42).

25

Ariew

pattern in both art and nature, Paleys inference recognizes a pattern in art that is more exquisite in nature. 4.4 Darwin. Perhaps Darwins answer to Paleys design argument was to demonstrate how the good designs in nature could be explained differently than the good designs of artifacts; replacing a Platonic creator with the blind forces of natural selection. Richard Dawkins (1986) has popularized this reading of Darwins contribution to biology:

A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his minds eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently puposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no minds eye. It does not plan for the futureIf it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (p. 5). On Dawkins reading the explanandum is the same for both Paley and Darwin: the existence of highly complex and intricate creatures well-suited for the task of reproduction. Darwin himself invites this reading of the explanatory role the theory of natural selection plays since much of the Origin compares natural selection with artificial selection. On this approach, Darwins task is steep. He has to explain how natural forces could conspire to assemble products displaying intricate and complex orders and arrangements that are so well suited to the environmental conditions. Recall that most important for Paleys creator is that its intentions and powers for creation are for the best in a global sense. Darwin then needs to demonstrate how a non-intentional physical force (or set of forces) could produce creations that match the global standard. Some historians think that Darwins theory succeeds: Here we have nature selecting, in that we have a deliberate metaphor that has nature doing what man familiarly does, but doing it much better (Hodge 1991, p. 214). But there are two problems with this approach. First, by regarding the living world as full of good designs, Darwins theory isnt clearly a better explanation for their existence than the creation theory. While a Darwin supporter might succeed in showing how certain

26

Ariew

natural processes could produce good designs, there always remains a nagging doubt as to whether the blind forces of natural selection could produce so many different perfections. Second, and more importantly, this interpretation ignores one of two components of Darwins evolutionary theory, the tree of life hypothesis. Darwin viewed all species as sharing a history, all evolving from a single common ancestor. Darwins theory of natural selection, the second component, explains how species evolve from ancestral species; how modifications lead new species to branch out of old ones. The proponent of Paleys natural theology most clearly opposes Darwins tree of life and hence sees no motivation for the theory of natural selection. Accordingly, creationists view each species is the unique creation of an all good God and thereafter immutable and eternal. How could Darwin demonstrate the superiority of his tree of life hypothesis? Should Darwin infer evolution from the same perfections and intricacies that Paley viewed as evidence for Gods handiwork? No. As SJ Gould (1980) puts it, ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are proof of evolutionpaths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce (p. 20). Darwins argument against a creator and for a nonintentional force of nature is found in the awkwardness of developmental patterns, and the seemingly poor designs of nature. Baleen whales develop teeth in neotony only for them to be reabsorbed into the baleen structure that they use to feed on krill. Why would an omnibenevolent God bother to allow whales to develop teeth that wont be used later in life? Pandas get at the tender shoots of bamboo through the inefficient process of running the stalks along an inflexible spur of bone that juts out like a thumb. Why didnt God give Pandas this clumsy design feature? Paleys argued that design is evident in mishaps as well, for the purpose is clear even if the system does not achieve it (Paley, p. 6, 7). However, Paley is referring to instances of failed development, e.g. deformed individuals. Darwins mishaps are flaws of typedesign flaws from a creators point of view. Darwin writes: Rudimentary organs may be compared with the letters in a word, still retained in the spelling, but become useless in the pronunciation,

27

Ariew

but which serve as a clue in seeking for its derivation (quoted in Gould, p. 27). To illustrate (something close to) Darwins language example, the fact that Spanish, French and Italian assign similar names to numbers is evidence that the words did not arise de novo for each language (Sober, 1993, 42).

French 1 2 3 4 un deux trois quatre

Italian uno due tre quattro

Spanish uno dos tres cuatro

Given the data, compare a creationist hypothesis with an evolutionary one:

H(creationist): each language is the result of an independent act of creation by a wise creator. H(evolutionist): the different languages are derived from modification of a common language. In this case, the evolutionary hypothesis is clearly the better inference from the data. Analogously, the reabsorbtion of whales teeth in its mothers womb is evidence that whale development is not a separate act of creation but survives as a remnant and modification (by natural selection) of an ancestral developmental pattern. In other words,

H(evolutionist): Organic traits are derived and modified from the traits of their ancestors. Better explains the evidence from poor design than does H(creationist): Each species are the result of an independent act of creation. Let us take stock of the importance of Darwins answer to Paleys argument to the issue of teleology. Darwin, in gathering evidence for his tree of life hypothesis, debunks Paleys Platonic teleology whereby organic traits are intentional designs of a supreme creator. However, by debunking Platonic teleology, it does not follow that Darwin has debunked natural teleology all

28

Ariew

together. Platonic teleology is only one sort, Aristotelian teleology is an entirely different sort. Evidence from vestigial and odd arrangements suggest that organic traits are not derived from a purposeful act of creation but rather organic traits are derived and modified from the traits of their ancestors through natural selection. That is, Darwin replaces the hand of creation with a non-intentional force, natural selection. How is natural selection a teleological force? I see remnants of two sorts of teleology operating in Darwin. The key to seeing both is within Darwins concept of natural selection which can be summed up as follows: as a result of individuals possessing different heritable abilities striving to survive and reproduce in local environments, comes an explanation for changes in trait composition of populations through time. Traits become prevalent in populations because they are useful to organisms in their struggle to survive. Aristotles functional teleology is preserved through the idea that an items existence can be explained in terms of its usefulness (Lennox 1993). What makes a trait useful is that it provides certain individuals an advantage over others in their own struggle to survive and reproduce. Secondly, the concept of individual striving to survive and reproduce plays the fundamental role in Darwins explanation for the origins of organic diversity. The same concept reminds us of Aristotles formal teleologythe striving for self-preservation. Usefulness is not a global valuation, a for the best in Platos sense, but an immanent feature of the relation between developing organism and their local environmental conditions (including their competitors). Traits that allow the organisms possessing them to be better suited to survive the struggle will be better represented in future populations. Likewise, Aristotles usefulness is a property of the individuals relation to the local environmental conditions. Recall the example: sharp teeth are in front for the sake of tearing. Sharp teeth contribute to the flourishing of organisms possessing them, whereby the flourishing depends on the carnivores local environment. There are significant differences between Aristotles formal teleology and Darwins. Compare Darwins view of the source of trait variations that organisms come to possess with Aristotles idea that the origin of traits exist for the sake of the flourishing of organisms possessing them. On Darwins view

29

Ariew

variants arise by chance. That is, variants develop independently from any relation to the environment. Darwins theory of the source of variation is distinctly unAristotlelian. On Aristotles view traits develop for the sake of the individuals self-preservation. In fact, Karl von Baer critiques Darwin on this very point (Lenoir, p. 270). According to this critique, if blind necessity is the only force operating, then the fundamental questions of biology: development, adaptation, and the like will remain unintelligible. An explanation that strings together mechanical processes lacks the fundamental principle that connects the processes to a particular end (Lenoir, p. 271). I interpret von Baers criticism to be close to Aristotles argument from regularity: the materialist lacks the principle that distinguishes one material process from any other. Consequentially, what distinguishes developmental processes that lead to living newborn from one that fails? Another difference between Aristotles and Darwins teleology concerns Aristotles concept of hypothetical necessity. Recall that for Aristotle, an items usefulness constrains the necessity of the materials. That is, because eyes are useful for seeing, the organic ingredients coalesce. The need to see necessitated the existence of eye materials (fluid, lids, etc.). For Darwin, this is exactly backwards: the materials constrain function. Natural selection operates on the materials (the variants) that are available to it. Thats why pandas possess such an awkward mechanism for manipulating bamboo shoots. The pandas thumb is a modification of the enlarged radial sesamoid that the ancestors of pandas and its cousin species (bears and raccoons) possessed (Gould 1980, p. 23). The pandas thumb is a contraption, modified from the anatomy of what was available for selection to operate upon. This last point, I think, begins to explain Asa Grays remark (that I quote again): Darwins great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology: so that instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology (see also Amundson 1996, p. 32). The reference to Morphology refers to a school of thought that advanced a unity of plan theory of organic diversity. Accordingly, members of a taxonomic group are account for in terms of resemblances between members of the same and other taxonomic groups. Traits that resemble each other across taxonomic

30
groups are called homologues and indicate a common plan throughout nature. Morphologists thought that picking out homologous structures

Ariew

constituted picking out essential categories in nature. That is, the existence of homologous structures indicates the fundamental laws of body plans.11 However, Darwin wondered how to explain the prevalence of variants to the common plans? To this he invokes natural selection. Natural selection operates over pre-existing structures competing for limited resources in a common environment. So, while structures pre-exist their adaptive uses, its the process that produces adaptations that explains morphological change. (Notice, mutations, migrations, genetic recombination, all explain the existence of variants to the common plan, but it is natural selection that makes some of these variants prevalent in certain populations.) 5. Conclusion When we see appeals to teleology in science, it is crucial to identify what kind of teleology, and which kind of argument for it. While many scientists and philosophers of science have rightly rejected the Platonic telos with its arcane metaphysical trappings, other teleology in science is not wedded to such metaphysics. If biology has an ineliminable teleology, this isnt so bad as long as it is one of the more restrained Aristotelian versions of teleology.

11 Some modern day morphologists still hold this view for quite persuasive reasons. See the work of Goodwin.

31

Ariew

Amundson, Ron. Historical Development of the Concept of Adaptation. In Amundson, R. and Lauder, G. Adaptation. Academic Press. 1996. Annas, J. Aristotle on Inefficient Causes. Philosophical Quarterly 32; 1982, pp. 31ff. Ayala, F. Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology, Philosophy of Science 37, 1-15, 1970. Balme, D. M. Teleology and necessity. in Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J. (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Aristotles Biology. Cambridge U. Press.1987. Beatty, John. Teleology and the Relationship Between Biology and the Physical Sciences in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. In Durham and Purrington (eds.), Some Truer Method: Reflections on the Heritage of Newton. Columbia U. Press. pp. 113-144, 1990. Butts, Robert E. Teleology and Scientific Method in Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Nous 24, 1-16. 1990. Charles, David. Teleological Causation in the Physics. in Judson, Lindsay (ed.) Aristotles Physics: A Collection of Essays. Claredon. 1995. Charles, David. Aristotle on Hypothetical Necessity and Irreducibility. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 69, 01-53. 1988. Cooper, John M. Hypothetical necessity and natural teleology. in Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J. (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Aristotles Biology. Cambridge U. Press.1987. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker.WW. Norton and Co. 1986. Furley. The Rainfall Example in the Physics II.8. In Gotthelf (ed.) Aristotle on Nature and Living Things. Mathesis Publ 1985. Gayon, Jean. Darwinisms Struggle for Survival. Cambridge U. Press. 1998. Ghiselin, Michael. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. U. of California Press. 1969. Gotthelf, Allan. Aristotles conception of final causality in Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J. (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Aristotles Biology. Cambridge U. Press.1987. Gould, SJ. Pandas Thumb. W. W. Norton and Co. 1980. Hodge, J. Darwin, Whewell and Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy. 1991. pp. 457ff.

32

Ariew

Hurlbutt, R. H. Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument. U. of Nebraska Press. 1965. Lennox, James. Darwin was a Teleologist. Biology and Philosophy 8: 409421, 1993. Lennox, James G. Platos Unnatural Teleology. ???? Lennox, James G. Teleology in Keller and Lloyd (eds.) Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Harvard U. Press. 1992. Lenoir, Timothy. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century German Biology. U. of Chicago Press. 1982 Mayr, Ernst. Towards a New Philosophy of Biology. Belknap Press of Harvard U. Press. 1988. Morrow, G. Necessity and Persuasion in Platos Timaeus. Philosophical Review 59, 1950. pp. 147ff. Paley, W. Natural Theology. 2nd Ed. Oxford: J. Vincent. 1828. Ruse, M. The Darwinian Revolution. U. of Chicago Press. 1979. Sober, Elliott. Philosophy of Biology, 2nd. Ed. Westview Press. 2000. Strange, Steven K. The Double Explanaion in the Timaeus. Ancient Philosopy 5, 25-39. 1985. Underhill, G. E. The Use and Abuse of Final Causes. Mind 13, 50. 220-241. 1904 Whewell, W. Astronomy and General Physics, Considered with Reference to Natural Theology, Bridgewater Treatises, Treatise III. A New Edition, Carey, Lea & Blanchard. 1836. Woodfield, Andrew. Teleology. Cambridge U. Press. 1976. Zeyl, D. Timeaus. Hackett Publ. 2000.