Abstract
AbstractThis paper explicates the relationship between biological function and teleology by focusing not only on difference but also on conceptual overlap. By doing so, this paper is meant to increase awareness of the misleading potential of biological function and the educational necessity to explicate the meaning of biological function to biology students to prevent them from drawing inadequate teleological conclusions about biological phenomena. The conceptual overlap between teleology and biological function lies in the notion of telos (end, goal). Biologically inadequate teleology assumes that teloi (ends, goals) exist in nature and that natural mechanisms are directed towards teloi. Such inadequate teleological assumptions have been documented in students’ reasoning about biological phenomena. Biological function, however, does not involve the assumption that teloi exist in nature. Rather, biologists use the notion of telos as an epistemological tool whenever they consider a structure or mechanism functional because they view this structure or mechanism as a means to an end (telos). Whereas for biologists such means-ends conceptualizations represent a productive tool for identifying biological phenomena functionally, for students, such means-ends considerations can be misleading. Therefore, this paper explicates how far the concept of biological function involves reference to ends (teloi) and how it relates to biological mechanisms. The paper draws implications on how to prevent students from slipping from functional reasoning into inadequate teleological reasoning.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Education,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference122 articles.
1. Abrams E, Southerland S. The how’s and why’s of biological change: how learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. IJSE. 2001;23:1271–81.
2. Aldridge M, Dingwall R. Teleology on television? Eur J Commun. 2003;18:435–53.
3. Alters BJ. Teaching biological evolution in higher education: methodological, religious, and nonreligious issues. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2005.
4. an der Heiden U, Roth G, Schwegler H. Principles of self-generation and self-maintenance. Acta Biotheor. 1985;34:125–38.
5. Aristotle (Phys. 194a). Reeve CDC. Physics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing; 2018.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献