Editing Teleonomy (section)

== Relationship with teleology ==
{{further|Teleology in biology}}

[[Colin Pittendrigh]], who coined the term in 1958, applied it to biological phenomena that appear to be end-directed, hoping to limit the much older term [[teleology in biology|teleology]] to actions planned by an agent who can internally model alternative futures with [[intention]], purpose and foresight:
{{blockquote|Biologists for a while were prepared to say a turtle came ashore and laid its eggs. These verbal scruples were intended as a rejection of teleology but were based on the mistaken view that the efficiency of final causes is necessarily implied by the simple description of an end-directed mechanism. … The biologists long-standing confusion would be removed if all end-directed systems were described by some other term, e.g., 'teleonomic', in order to emphasize that recognition and description of end-directedness does not carry a commitment to Aristotelian teleology as an efficient causal principle.<ref>Pittendrigh, C. S. "Adaptation, natural selection, and behavior", in ''Behavior and Evolution'', ed. A. Roe and [[George Gaylord Simpson]], New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958, 390–416; p. 394.</ref>}}

In 1965 [[Ernst Mayr]] cited Pittendrigh and criticized him for not making a "clear distinction between the two teleologies of Aristotle"; evolution involves Aristotle's [[material cause]]s and [[formal cause]]s rather than [[efficient cause]]s.<ref name="causeandeffect">{{cite book |author=Mayr, Ernst |authorlink=Ernst Mayr |chapter=Cause and effect in biology |editor=Lerner, D. |title=Cause and effect |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/causeeffect00lern |chapter-url-access=registration |publisher=Free Press |location=New York |date=1965 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/causeeffect00lern/page/33 33–50] }}</ref> Mayr adopted Pittendrigh's term, but supplied his own definition:{{blockquote|It would seem useful to rigidly restrict the term ''teleonomic'' to systems operating on the basis of a program of coded information. (p.42)}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] described the properties of "archeo-purpose" (by natural selection) and "neo-purpose" (by evolved adaptation) in his talk on the "Purpose of Purpose". Dawkins attributes the brain's flexibility as an evolutionary feature in adapting or subverting goals to making neo-purpose goals on an overarching evolutionary archeo-purpose. Language allows groups to share neo-purposes, and cultural evolution - occurring much faster than natural evolution - can lead to conflict or collaborations.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/3956-the-purpose-of-purpose |title=The Purpose of Purpose - Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net |accessdate=2012-12-19 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140121222125/http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/3956-the-purpose-of-purpose |archivedate=2014-01-21 }}</ref>

In [[behavior analysis]], Hayne Reese made the [[adverbial]] distinction between purposefulness (having an internal determination) and purposiveness (serving or effecting a useful function). Reese implies that non-teleological statements are called teleonomic when they represent an "if A then C" phenomenon's [[Antecedent (logic)|antecedent]]; where, teleology is a [[consequent]] representation. The concept of purpose, as only being the teleology final cause, requires supposedly impossible [[Temporal paradox|time reversal]]; because, the future consequent determines the present antecedent. Purpose, as being both in the beginning and the end, simply rejects teleology, and addresses the time reversal problem. In this, Reese sees no value for teleology and teleonomic concepts in behavior analysis; however, the concept of purpose preserved in process can be useful, if not reified.<ref>{{cite journal | title=Teleology and Teleonomy in Behavior Analysis | author=Reese, Hayne W. | journal=The Behavior Analyst | date=1994 | volume=17 | issue=1 | pages=75–91 | pmc=2733687 | pmid=22478174|doi = 10.1007/bf03392654}}</ref> A theoretical time-dimensional tunneling and teleological functioning of [[temporal paradox]] would also fit this description without the necessity of a localized intelligence. Whereas the concept of a teleonomic process, such as [[evolution]], can simply refer to a system capable of producing complex products without the benefit of a guiding foresight.

In 1966 [[George C. Williams (biologist)|George C. Williams]] approved of the term in the last chapter of his ''Adaptation and Natural Selection; a critique of some current evolutionary thought''.<ref>{{cite book |author=Williams, G.C. |title=Adaptation and natural selection; a critique of some current evolutionary thought |url=https://archive.org/details/adaptationnatura00will |url-access=registration |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |location=Princeton, NJ |date=1966 |isbn=0-691-02615-7 }}</ref> In 1970, [[Jacques Monod]], in ''[[Chance and Necessity]], an Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology'',<ref>{{cite book |author=Monod, Jacques |title=Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology |publisher=[[Alfred A. Knopf]] |location=New York |date=1971 |isbn=0-394-46615-2 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/chancenecessity00jacq }}</ref> suggested teleonomy as a key feature that defines life:

{{blockquote|Rather than reject this [goal-directedness] idea (as certain biologists have tried to do) it is indispensable to recognise that it is essential to the very definition of living beings. We shall maintain that the latter are distinct from all other structures or systems present in the universe through this characteristic property, which we shall call teleonomy.
[..] It will be readily seen that, in this or that species situated higher or lower on the animal scale, the achievement of the fundamental teleonomic project (i.e., invariant reproduction) calls assorted, more or less elaborate and complex structures and performances into play. The fact must be stressed that concerned here are not only the activities directly bound up with reproduction itself, but all those that contribute-be it very indirectly-to the species' survival and multiplication. For example, in higher mammals the play of the young is an important element of psychic development and social integration. Therefore this activity has teleonomic value, inasmuch as it furthers the cohesion of the group, a condition for its survival and for the expansion of the species.}}

In 1974 Ernst Mayr illustrated<ref>{{cite book |author=Mayr, E. |chapter=Teleological and Teleonomic, a New Analysis |series=Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science |title=A Portrait of Twenty-five Years |volume=14 |date=1974 |doi=10.1007/978-94-009-5345-1_10 |pages=133–159|isbn=978-90-277-1971-3 }}</ref> the difference in the statements:

:: "The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall '''in order to escape''' the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates."

:: "The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall '''and thereby escapes''' the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates."

{{blockquote|If we replace the words ‘in order to escape’ by ‘and thereby escapes’, we leave the important question unanswered as to why the Wood Thrush migrates. The teleonomic form of the statement implies that the goal-directed migratory activity is governed by a program. By omitting this important message the second sentence is greatly impoverished as far as information content is concerned, without gaining in causal strength.}}

Subsequently, philosophers like [[Ernest Nagel]] further analysed<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/2025745 |author=Nagel, E. |title=Teleology Revisited: Goal-Directed Processes in Biology |jstor=2025745 |journal=Journal of Philosophy |volume=74 |issue=5 |pages=261–301 |date=1977 }} Reprinted in Allen, Bekoff & Lauder, 1998.</ref> the concept of goal-directedness in biology and by 1982, philosopher and historian of science [[David Hull (philosopher)|David Hull]] joked<ref>{{cite book |author=Hull, D.L. |chapter=Philosophy and Biology |title=Philosophy of Science |pages=280–316 |volume=2 |editor=Fløistad, Guttorm |editor-link=Guttorm Fløistad |series=Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey |publisher=Nijhoff |location=Hague |date=1982 |isbn=90-247-2518-6 }}</ref> about the use of teleology and teleonomy by biologists:

{{blockquote|Haldane [in the 1930s] can be found remarking, ‘Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.’ Today the mistress has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it. The only concession which they make to its disreputable past is to rename it ‘teleonomy’.}}