TELEOLOGY

[Dr. Goodword]

• teleology •

Pronunciation: te-li-ah-lê-ji • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Noun, mass

Meaning: The causal factors in the development of things or the study of these factors, which is to say, the study of how phenomena get to be the way they are.

Notes: Everyone wants to know why the things around us are the way they are, especially scientists, who have come up with today's Good Word to express this curiosity. Finding the reasons behind phenomena, of course, is what scientists are for, so they have created a full complement of derivative words to help us talk about their pursuits. A person researching teleology is a teleologist (the agent noun) involved in teleological (the adjective) studies.

In Play: Let's start with probably the best known theory of teleology in science: "Darwin's theory on the origin of species offers a teleology of the species diversity on Earth." Even though we seldom hear the word in casual conversation, it does fit everyday situations: "I don't know the teleology of the decision to charge for on-campus parking but I wish the faculty had been a part of it."

Word History: The constituent tele- in today's Good Word is unrelated to the similar one in television and telephone. The latter came from the Greek adverb tele "at a distance" but the tele- in today's word came from Greek telos "goal, completion of a cycle". Where this word came from is a mystery. However, we do also find it in Greek telesma "consecration ceremony", a word borrowed by Arabic as tilasm. This word was next borrowed by Spanish from Arabic during the Moorish Period of Spanish history (711-1492). The Spanish spelled the Arabic word talismán, which is approximately how we spell today, after borrowing it from Spanish. (We are not sure of the teleology of Rachelle Shubert's suggesion that we discuss today's Good Word, but we thank her for doing so.)

[Jeff hook]

I respect Dr. Beard's impressive knowledge of linguistics and I particularly admire his explanations of the fine points of etymology. I wanted to reply to his comments about the meaning and usage of this technical term. I thought "teleology" is used in philosophy to focus attention on ultimate purposes and goals rather than in the other direction. This entry from the on-line American Heritage Dictionary may suggest that my recollection was correct. (The emphasis is mine.)

http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/T0089700.html

teleology

SYLLABICATION: tel·e·ol·o·gy

PRONUNCIATION: http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/97/T0089700.wav

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. tel·e·ol·o·gies

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.

3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an END, as in nature or history.

ETYMOLOGY: Greek teleios, teleos, perfect, complete (from telos, END, RESULT; see kwel-1 in Appendix I) + –logy.

OTHER FORMS:

tele·o·logi·cal (--lj-kl) , tele·o·logic (-k) —ADJECTIVE

tele·o·logi·cal·ly —ADVERB

tele·olo·gist —NOUN

If we think of causes as STARTING points we must think of teleological processes as movements toward END points.

A non-teleological philosophy might suggest, for example, that Nature began randomly and that it then evolved in a series of purposeless subsequent events. Such an interpretation would accept an infinite array of different beginning conditions and of subsequent events, all of which would result in different outcomes.

A teleological world view would argue that Nature has moved purposefully toward a particular goal (an end point, the Greek "telos") in a progression which might have been pre-ordained, or willed by God, and which wouldn't admit of any alternatives.

The non-teleological analysis focuses on movement from a starting point and the teleological analysis focuses on movement toward an end point. If a non-teleological analysis could be said to interpret events as a process of falling, in a random cascade, then a teleological analysis could be said, by contrast, to interpret events as a process of climbing, in a purposeful ascent. This distinction may seem to be subtle, but I think it's important.

It might be said that a non-teleological interpretation of events is retrospective, because it looks back in time, because it focuses on the causes of occurrences, and because it asks, "How did we GET here?" A teleological interpretation of events could be said to be prospective, because it looks forward in time, because it focuses on goals and on objectives, and because it asks, "Where are we GOING?"

I'd expect students of philosophy to agree that aspiration or striving toward end points is seen in some teleological world views, such as in medieval theology.

I'm surprised to see Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" cited as an example of a teleological explanation of Nature. Darwin's theory may be generally regarded as teleological, but I thought it wasn't and I wonder if I was wrong. (I'll check this interesting point but I wanted to try to start a discussion of teleology first.)

I thought Darwin was suggesting that evolution of species occurs when RANDOM mutations increase the ability of organisms to survive. I believe he said new traits are incorporated into species' gene pools when "mutant organisms" live long enough to reproduce, and to pass their new traits to their descendants. This seems to be the antithesis of a teleological process, because each increment of change occurs randomly and without any "grand purpose" or "ultimate reason."

A hypothetical teleological explanation of the evolution of species might be, for example, that "All species evolve in order to delight the Creator." I don't know if such an explanation of evolution has actually been offered by any school of thought, but I suspect it has. I'm only using this example to contrast the purposefulness of a teleological explanation with the randomness of a non-teleological explanation.

Dr. Beard's reference to Darwin's Theory of Evolution potentially involves the current "Creationism - Intelligent Design - Evolution" controversy, and it'll be interesting to see if this thread attracts attention on that basis. I'm only attempting to suggest that, if they do admit that species change over time, observers who interpret those changes teleologically might argue that the changes are evidence of some overall, purposeful plan or that the changes demonstrate movement towards some ultimate goal.

I don't think Darwin believed that the evolution of species was heading towards any particular denouement. I think I once read that he observed some traits of plants and animals which seemed to make little "practical" evolutionary sense because they didn't seem to enhance survival, at least in the circumstances in which he observed them. I believe he interpreted those cases as exceptions which proved his rule: that all evolution was "contextual," that it occurred as a result of random mutations, that traits became incorporated in gene pools if they conferred advantages in given circumstances, that circumstances could change, and that evolution was continuous but that it WASN'T teleological.

I could be on the cusp of an educational experience here, and I should thank Dr. Beard for that! I'd be surprised to learn that a long process of random events could be regarded as teleological, but "stay tuned." I'll try to share whatever I'm able to learn.

The occurrence of the genetic mutations which produce new traits is RANDOM, and without any ultimate purpose, but such changes are only incorporated in the gene pool of any species if the changes confer advantages in the environmental contexts in which they occur. Such a "rule" might be regarded as teleological. It might therefore be important to distinguish between the *appearance* of random changes and the more systematic *incorporation* of only *some* of those changes in gene pools. I believe this distinction was fiercely debated during Darwin's time. We're still debating it today.

Jeff Hook

[Stargzer]

... I'd expect students of philosophy to agree ...

I don't think that students of philosophy could agree to disagree!

Stargzer is too tired at the moment to do his own research.

[Jeff hook]

We also use the Greek word "telos" to name structures on the ends of chromosomes. Telomeres are involved in cell division, in cell mortality, and in the disruptions of those processes during the development of cancer:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/T0096000.html

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... tnG=Search

Jeff Hook
East Orange, NJ

[Jeff hook]

I don't want to do this piecemeal, and I will work up a studied but terse contribution, but I found an essay which seems to discuss Darwin's own thoughts about teleology. This is a scholarly text and it's replete with footnotes which I've omitted. I also want to stress that I was impatient to share this because it seemed so much on point. I only checked the source of this text after I submitted these annotated excerpts. It's offered by "The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)," "A Fellowship of Christians in Science," at:

http://www.asa3.org/

and I'm not so sure about the objectivity of such a source, but I hope this is an accurate report of the relationship of the concept of teleology to Darwin's theory of evolution:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design

Sara Joan Miles*

Eastern College

1300 Eagle Road
St. Davids, PA 19087

From: PSCF 53 (September 2001): 196-201.

If Thomas Huxley earned the title of "Darwin's bulldog," then Asa Gray should be remembered as "Darwin's dove." Whereas Huxley enjoyed a good fight in his defense of Darwin's theory, Gray sought to mediate and bring sides together around a common understanding of "good science." As Darwin's strongest and most vocal scientific ally in the United States, Gray recognized the scientific importance of Darwin's efforts for the growing professionalism of biological researchers. But as an orthodox Christian, a Presbyterian firmly devoted to the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed, he saw in Darwin's theory both evidence for his philosophical commitment to natural theology and support for his opposition to the idealism advocated by Louis Agassiz and the naturphilosophers in both Europe and America. Indeed, Agassiz's advocacy of Platonic forms as a basis of biological understanding (e.g., "A species is a thought of the creator" would be a major source of American opposition to Darwin's theory.

Professor of botany at Harvard during most of the middle half of the nineteenth century, Gray was one of the few members of the scientific community to whom Darwin revealed his theory before the publication of On the Origin of Species, and, from what I can tell, the only American. Gray and Darwin met briefly in January 1839 during one of Gray's visits to England. Later, during the 1850s, Darwin wrote Gray on several occasions requesting information--a practice that Darwin frequently employed. In 1854, Darwin's friend and confidant, Joseph Hooker, showed Darwin Gray's review of Hooker's Flora of New Zealand, in which Gray had argued strongly against Louis Agassiz's idealism and had raised questions from his own work on the stability of species. Gray was not yet ready to deny their permanence, but hybrids and other observations were beginning to trouble him...

...When Origins was published, Gray wrote a clear, positive, yet critical review in The American Journal of Science. Aware of mounting religious opposition, he ended his review by arguing that whereas one could use Darwin's theory in support of an atheistic view of Nature, one could use any scientific theory in that way. He wrote: "The theory of gravitation and ... the nebular hypothesis assume a universal and ultimate physical cause, from which the effects in nature must necessarily have resulted." He did not see the physicists and astronomers who adopted Newton's theories as atheists or pantheists, though Leibnitz earlier had raised such reservations. And a similar situation existed with the origin of species by natural selection. Darwin, Gray continued: "merely takes up a particular, proximate cause, or set of such causes, from which, it is argued, the present diversity of species has or may have contingently resulted. The author does not say necessarily resulted." This far Gray could go with Darwin. But there was a point at which he parted company, and that was the fortuitous randomness of the process that Darwin's theory seemed to imply.

As all good historians of science and of Christian thought know, evangelical Christians in the nineteenth century were generally not biblical literalists, nor did they believe in a young earth. In other words, the religious opposition to Darwin did not arise from perceived problems between Darwin's theory and a literal reading of Genesis. Rather, following the publication of Origin of Species, it centered on what seemed to be the randomness of natural selection, the appearance of new organisms by chance, and therefore the exclusion of divine purpose or design in Nature. It was the teleological question that Gray addressed in his review and about which he and Darwin corresponded over many years.

Darwin's response to Gray's review, a copy of which he received prior to its publication, was very positive. Darwin even hoped that it could become a preface in a second American edition of On the Origin of Species on which Gray worked. In a letter later in the year to James Dwight Dana, Darwin said: "No one person understands my views & has defended them so well as A. Gray;--though he does not by any means go all the way with me." The "all the way" included teleology...

...In 1874 Gray wrote an article for Nature that was essentially a tribute to Darwin. After discussing his contributions, Gray said:

"Apropos to these papers, which furnish excellent illustrations of it, let us recognise Darwin's 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."

Darwin's response showed pleasure. He wrote: "What you say about Teleology pleases me especially, and I do not think any one else has ever noticed the point. I have always said you were the man to hit the nail on the head." And near the end of his life, Darwin wrote to his friend T. H. Farrer these words: "f we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of chance--that is, without design or purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, ...."

Why was this an "insoluble" question for Darwin and not for Gray? I believe that there were two closely related factors upon which they disagreed and which led to their different viewpoints. First, as Michael Roberts has insightfully pointed out, Darwin followed the traditional Paleyean view of design and tried to go from design in Nature to belief in God. Gray began with a belief in God and saw design in Nature as a result of that belief.

Another way to say it is that for Darwin, design would be evidence for God, whereas for Gray, design would be evidence from God. Since Darwin believed that Nature provided examples that would give evidence for a God that either could not or would not eliminate suffering, he preferred to withhold total commitment to design. Gray, on the other hand, knew from Scripture the attributes of God, and therefore could accept the errors, evil, and suffering of Nature within the same theological context that he did for humans. And that explanation relates to the second factor upon which they disagreed: the relationship of free will and predestination or, as Gray put it in the title of one of his articles, design versus necessity. As Darwin's questions about the man killed by lightning and the gnat eaten by a swallow had indicated, Darwin could not reconcile the seeming randomness of certain particular events with an overall, foreordained plan. Either everything was determined or nothing was...

Again: Thank you, Dr. Beard!

Jeff Hook

[Bailey]

This is a scholarly text

This is where my eyes usually glaze over and my brain goes 'on hold', but it was an interesting text, though I don't necessarily believe in the premise or go along with its 'religious' fervor, the scholarly part was very convincing if not accurate in its basis.

mark chimp-of-very-little-brain Bailey

[Jeff hook]

I don't know what I was thinking or if I even was thinking when I suggested I'd work up a terse final comment about the challenging topics which have been introduced here. I don't have the knowledge or the understanding which I'd need to be able to contribute any such comments.

I'd like to thank Mark Bailey for including a moving Helen Keller quotation in his signature. I think her comments can guide us when we participate in all types of on-line discussion forums. We've all seen various "psycho-social" dynamics in these discussions, such as "one-upsmanship," ad hominem attacks, etc. The Helen Keller comment seems to suggest that we can give one another the benefit of the doubt, and that we can assume that each of us is sincerely and earnestly trying to do the best we can. This might help us overlook eccentricities of individual style, etc.

I think enough may have been said about the "prospective orientation" of "teleology" relative to the "retrospective orientation" of discussions of causes. Discussions of causes can certainly be prospective, inasmuch as causes of past events can be expected to recur in the future, but I think the basic distinction may be clear. That may have been the only topic which was appropriate for this language-oriented forum.

I hoped we might benefit from comments by readers who might be inclined to share their own academic &/or professional knowledge of various scientific topics with us. I kept an eye on Google Web's citations of Web references to "teleology," and I was pleased to see that this thread was listed well within Google's first 100 citations. I hoped that might lead to the addition of expert comment, but none's been added here so far.

I wonder if most of the relatively large number of viewings of this thread which are reported on the Good Word Discussion "Table of Contents" Web page might result from observations of this thread by Good Word newsletter subscribers who might check in here periodically. I hoped that keywords in this discussion might pull in some "outsiders," but there won't be any evidence that such readers have found this thread unless they wish to comment here. I hope they do! If you're one of them, please consider shining some light on us here!

You might want to consider these additional points which I'll list at random:

1. I may have misspoken when I suggested that Darwin attributed genetic variation in offspring to "random mutations." The concept of "mutations" might not even have been suspected by Darwin or by his contemporaries, and it seems not yet to have been understood by them.

2. Gregor Mendel laid down the basics of the science of genetics during the mid 19th century when he conducted his meticulous study of pea plants in the garden of an Austrian monastery. I don't think anyone understood the structure of living cells at that time, and Mendel himself didn't seem to gain a true understanding of genes, but he did discover dominance and recessiveness of "traits," his reports of the patterns of the inheritance of traits were accurate, and the "particles" by which he thought traits were transmitted to offspring seemed to be tantamount to genes.

3. Mendel had read Darwin's works, but Darwin seems never to have been aware of Mendel's work, which was largely ignored by the scientific community until the start of the 20th century, after the death of both Mendel and Darwin. An "Internet myth" that Darwin's library was found after his death to have contained Mendel's complete works in an "uncut" volume seems to have been debunked by Darwin's archivists in the UK.

4. Darwin and his contemporaries all suspected that some sort of "blending" or "shuffling" of traits occurred during sexual reproduction, but they seem not to have understood the basics of the inheritance of traits which Mendel demonstrated. They certainly didn't seem to have any knowledge of genes, of chromosomes, of Meiosis, or of any other microbiological details.

Jeff Hook

[richard]

Jeff wrote: "I'd like to thank Mark Bailey for including a moving Helen Keller quotation in his signature. I think her comments can guide us when we participate in all types of on-line discussion forums. We've all seen various "psycho-social" dynamics in these discussions, such as "one-upsmanship," ad hominem attacks, etc. The Helen Keller comment seems to suggest that we can give one another the benefit of the doubt, and that we can assume that each of us is sincerely and earnestly trying to do the best we can. This might help us overlook eccentricities of individual style, etc."

Thanks to you too, Jeff, for noticing and expessing your sentiments about it. Others are thereby encouraged to do the same. I agree with what you say.

richard

[Bailey]

uh, thanks,

sorry about all my "psycho-social" dynamics in these discussions, such as "one-upsmanship," ad hominem attacks, etc.



mark er-no-I-didn't-misunderstand Bailey
aw gee.

[Perry]

Most of the one-upsmanship in this forum is of the squeezing one more pun out of a situation variety. Rarely does anyone try to show others up by academic one-upsmanship.

Ad hominem attacks are very rare here. And I will bury anyone, ad hoc, who disagrees.