The Evolution of An Evolutionist: Michael Ruse and Teleology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48160/18532330me14.355Keywords:
Michael Ruse, philosophy of biology, teleology, metaphor of designAbstract
This article analyses the changes in philosopher Michael Ruse’s stance regarding the issue of the nature and legitimacy of teleology in Biology. To this end, Ruse’s analyses on this topic in his 1973 book Philosophy of Biology are compared with those after 1989. The shifts in Ruse’s perspective on this matter are linked to the dominant currents in the Philosophy of Science during the different periods under examination. The latest analyses focus on understanding teleology as linked to the design metaphor, thus paying particular attention to the role of this metaphor in Biology. Finally, the value of Ruse’s analyses for Biologists and Biology teachers is discussed.
References
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2005), Una introducción a la naturaleza de la ciencia, Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Allen, C. y J. Neal, (2020), “Teleological Notions in Biology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/teleology-biology/>.
Allen, C., Bekoff, M. y G. Lauder (1998), Nature’s Purposes. Analyses of Function and Design in Biology, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Ayala, F. (1999), “Adaptation and Novelty: Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 21(1): 3-33.
Brandon, R. (1981), “Biological Teleology: Questions and Explications”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12(2): 91-105.
Bowler, P. (1983), The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bowler, P. (2005), “Revisiting the Eclipse of Darwinism”, Journal of the History of Biology 38: 19-32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-004-6507-0
Bradie, M. (1999), “Science and Metaphor”, Biology and Philosophy 14(2): 159-166.
Caponi, G. (2003), “Darwin: entre Paley y Demócrito”, História, Ciências, Saúde. Manguinhos 10(3): 993-1023.
Cupo, B., González Galli, L. y I. Soto (2023), “El recurso a la metáfora del diseño para fomentar la vigilancia metacognitiva del pensamiento teleológico en el aprendizaje del modelo de evolución por selección natural”, Bio-grafía. Escritos sobre la biología y su enseñanza, Número extraordinario: 1938-1944.
Dennett, D. (1991), La actitud intencional, Barcelona: Gedisa.
Dennett, D. (2015), Bombas de intuición y otras herramientas de pensamiento, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Depew, D. (2008), “Consequence Etiology and Biological Teleology in Aristotle and Darwin”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 39: 379-390.
Diéguez Lucena, A. (2020), Filosofía de la ciencia. Ciencia, racionalidad y realidad, Málaga: UMA Editorial.
Diéguez, A. (2012), La vida bajo escrutinio. Una introducción a la filosofía de la biología, Barcelona: Buridán.
Díez, J. y C. U. Moulines (2008), Fundamentos de Filosofía de la Ciencia, Barcelona: Ariel.
Fodor, J. (1996), “Peacocking”, London Review of Books 18(8): 9-20.
Futuyma, D. (2009), Evolution, Sunderland: Sinauer.
Gaeta, R., Gentile, N., Lucero, S. y N. Robles (1996), Modelos de explicación científica. Problemas epistemológicos de las ciencias naturales y sociales, Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.
Gambarotto, A. y A. Nahas (2022), “Teleology and the Organism: Kant’s Controversial Legacy for Contemporary Biology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 93: 47-56.
Giere, R. (1992), La explicación de la Ciencia, México: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología.
Ginnobili, S. (2018), La teoría de la selección natural. Una exploración metacientífica, Quilmes: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2022), Filosofía de la Biología, Madrid: Bauplan.
González Galli, L. (2016), “El problema de la teleología y la metáfora del diseño en Biología: cuestiones epistemológicas e implicancias didácticas”, TED (Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis) 40: 149-173.
González Galli, L. (2019), “Permitido decir «para»: el problema de la teleología en la enseñanza de la Biología”, Revista Científica, 34(1): 49-62. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.13710
González Galli, L., Pérez, G. y A. Gómez Galindo (2020), “The Self-Regulation of Teleological Thinking in Natural Selection Learning”, Evolution Education & Outreach 13(6), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00120-0
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “The Logic of Functional Analysis”, en Hempel, C. G., Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, New York: Free Press, pp. 297-330.
Hickman, C., Roberts, L., Keen, S., Larson, A., I'Anson, H. y D. Eisenhour (2008), Integrated Principles of Zoology, Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Haig, D. (2023), “Femmes Finales: Natural Selection, Physiology, and the Return of the Repressed”, Qeios, Preprint from Qeios, 22 May. https://doi.org/10.32388/467bmx
Hofstadter, D. y E. Sander (2018), La analogía. Motor del pensamiento, Barcelona: Tusquets.
Hull, D. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Hull, D. y M. Ruse (2007), “Preface”, en Hull, D. y M. Ruse (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology, Nueva York: Cambridge University Press, pp. ix-xvii.
Jacob, F. (1986), La lógica de lo viviente, Barcelona: Salvat.
Lacey, H. (2005), Values and Objectivity in Science: The Current Controversy About Transgenic Crops, Oxford: Lexington Books.
Lennox, J. (1993), “Darwin was a Teleologist”, Biology and Philosophy 8: 409-421.
Lewens, T. (2000), “Function Talk and the Artefact Model”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 31(1): 95-111.
Lewens, T. (2004), Organisms and Artifacts. Design in Natura and Elsewhere, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Mahner, M. y M. Bunge (2000), Fundamentos de Biofilosofía, México: Siglo XXI.
Mayr, E. (1969), “Footnotes on the Philosophy of Biology”, Philosophy of Science 36(2): 197-202.
Nagel, E. (1998), “Teleologia Revisited”, en Allen, C., Bejoff, M. y G. Lauder (eds.), Nature’s Purposes. Analyses of Function and Design in Biology, Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 197-240.
Nagel, E. (2006), La estructura de la ciencia, Barcelona: Paidós.
Nagel, T. (2012), Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, New York: Oxford University Press.
Palma, H. (2015), Ciencia y metáforas. Crítica de una razón incestuosa, Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros.
Palma, H. (2022), “La filosofía de la biología”, en Palma, H. (comp.), Filosofía de las ciencias para el siglo XXI. Nuevos debates y problemas, San Martín: Uuirto. pp. 53-78.
Reynolds, A. (2022), Understanding Metaphors in the Life Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruse, M. (2018), On Purpose, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ruse M. (2015), “Evolutionary Biology and the Question of Teleology”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences 58: 100-106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.12.001
Ruse, M. (2008), Charles Darwin, Malden: Blackwell publishing.
Ruse, M. (2003), Darwin and Design. Does Evolution Have a Purpose?, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ruse, M. (2000), “Teleology: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences 31(1): 213-232.
Ruse, M. (1999), Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?, Cambridge: Harvard Universtiy Press.
Ruse, M. (1996), Monad to Man. The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ruse, M. (1989a), “Teleology and The Biological Sciences”, en Ruse, M., The Darwinian Paradigm, Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications, New York: Routledge, pp. 145-154.
Ruse, M. (1989b), “Teleology in Biology: Is it a Cause of Concern?”, TREE 4(2): 51-54.
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology, Londres: Hutchinson University Library.
Saborido, C. (2014), “New Directions in the Philosophy of Biology: A New Taxonomy of Functions”, en Galavotti, M., Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W., Hartmann, S., Uebel, T. y M. Weber (eds.), New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, vol. 5, Cham: Springer, pp. 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_16
Short, T. (2002), “Darwin’s Concept of Final Cause: Neither New nor Trivial”, Biology and Philosophy 17(3): 322-340.
Sterelny, K. (2020), Richard Dawkins contra Stephen Gould, Barcelona: Arpa.
Sterelny, K. y P. Griffiths (1999), Sex and Death. An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology, Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
Thagard, P. (2005), Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Thompson, P. (1989), The Structure of Biological Theories, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walsh, D. (2006), “Organisms as Natural Purposes: The Contemporary Evolutionary Perspective”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 37(4): 771-791.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
LicenseThe documents published here are governed by the licensing criteria
Creative Commons Argentina.Atribución - No Comercial - Sin Obra Derivada 2.5 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/