# Talk:Teleology in biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nsaffran.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Teleology is a kind of thought.
This kind of thought holds that goals and ends are causal.
Such thinking goes against modern science (see Mind and Cosmos).
In pre-darwinian biology, truly teleological explanations were dominant and taken for granted.
In modern biology, explanations that look teleological but are not intended to be teleological are common.
This article should not assume that the reader understands what teleology is. It is a difficult concept and the article teleology does not explain it well.
The phenomenon of teleology in biology does not have a name. Therefore the article should not take the form of an explanation of a term.
Although there is consensus in modern biology on accepting only mechanistic, reductionist, explanations, teleological explanations are still debated in philosophical discussions on biological subjects, for example the evolution of consciousness.
Teleological expressions are common in modern biology and historical biology was truly teleological. This means that historical biology viewed biological phenomena as arising because they fulfilled a goal, for example the will of God. In modern biology, statements that look teleological are still common. In evolution, the more efficient variants become more common. When the biologist discusses specific features of those variants, it is very tempting to describe them as if they are there because they fulfill an imagined goal of being successful in becoming common. Ettrig (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017‎ (UTC) 

Thanks for those Wittgensteinian comments, which I do in fact understand, but I wouldn't assume to be transparent to many readers. I had as it happens just copy-edited your additions into the article. We must take care not to lose readers in a Tractatus-like maze of philosophical caveats: the article on Teleology is necessarily more philosophical than this one, and is the right place for detailed definition and the kind of improvements you suggest: it is already "main"-linked in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. We seem to agree on the difficult parts and disagree on the easy parts. Peculiar. I think the points above are important for the writer of this article to have in mind, but not suitable to put directly in the article. That is why I put them here in the talk page. You seem to agree on this. Still, you seem vaguely unhappy. I don't know what to do about that. --Ettrig (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm very glad to hear you don't want to put them in the article; putting things on a talk page generally means the opposite, indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Teleology in biology describes adaptations that achieve the Darwinian evolutionary goal of improving an organism's fitness, that is to say increasing its chances of leaving offspring which themselves survive to reproduce. 
This first sentence is confusing. The task is to describe the occurrence of teleology in biology. Instead of doing this it almost only describes natural selection. The only difference is the occurence of the word goal. This is wrong about Darwinism and true about teleology. The way it is formulated it is not possible to determine which one is intended or even if the writer was aware of the distinction. This is a Wikipedia article, so instead of being obscure we must strive to be very clear. Yes, the apparent purpusefulness of adaptations do tempt to teleological interpretations. But we must define what a teleological interpretation in biology is before we explain how it arose. --Ettrig (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the additions to the lead have made that beginning awkward. I've reworded the first few lines. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I recommend this article contains some mention of teleonomy? 131.111.185.47 (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All right, I've put it in, but the term has barely been used by biologists, and frankly it doesn't change anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Teleology in biology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 11:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


### Comments by section
#### Lead
OK Y


#### 1 Context
Y all subsections check out OK.


##### 1.1 Natural theology
Y


##### 1.2 Goal-directed evolution
Y


##### 1.3 Natural selection
Y I would consider sexual selection as just an aspect of natural selection, but that is my opinion, others may differ. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.


##### 1.4 Adaptation
Y


##### 1.5 Teleology
Would this section not be more appropriate at an earlier point in the article? Possibly 1.1? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me. Done.
Is "final cause" the best expression to explain the concept? I would prefer to see a term that is less likely to be a bit vague in the mind of the average reader. Maybe purpose? Open to discussion on this. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I blame Aristotle... perhaps the gloss "(purpose)" will help; on its own, it'd be a bit obscure too. See what you think.
Aristotle was doing pretty well considering where he started, and perhaps some of the blame should go to the translators. Your solution is good for me.
Y


#### 2 Status in evolutionary biology
Y


##### 2.1 Reasons for discomfort
How does the concept of adaptation imply that biologists agree that every trait is perfectly suited to its functions?
Gould and Lewontin's argument is that the idea "adapted [to its environment]" carries with it the cultural implication "perfectly fitted to its environment", even though as they (and the article) correctly say, Darwinism doesn't actually require any such perfection. These things are reliably cited, and FWIW I'd say it's a plausible case for a bit of discomfort.
I think they overreach a bit in that generalisation, but that is their prerogative. I accept that it is their opinion, but we should not assume it is universally accepted without further evidence. I am not aware of a definition for adaptation that implies it must be perfect.
OK, said "can be taken to imply", i.e. we don't have to share their view to think it worth reporting.
I could not find support for Such creationism, along with a vitalist life-force and directed orthogenetic evolution, has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of biologists. in the reference given. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The source says "Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator. Even after creationist viewpoints were rejected by most biologists ..." I've changed "overwhelming majority" to "most".
OK
Y


##### 2.2 Removable teleological shorthand
Y


##### 2.3 Irreducible teleology
I am slightly uncomfortable with this being the final section, but that may reflect my personal bias, as I don't agree that it is unavoidable, just slightly inconvenient because of habits of thinking. Would you consider the possible advantages in swapping this for the preceding section? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense in the current order, ie what's the problem, can you remove it, no some people think you can't. Not sure it works the other way.
Apparently some people (Ernst Mayr, for example) think you can and should. See (Ribeiro, Manuel Gustavo Leitao; et al. 2015), but I'm not going to make an issue of it.
I've already hinted that Mayr was a bit of an old woman about it all (hope that's a PC remark), being more than a bit precious from his lofty seat at Evolution. He may have made quite a fuss, but as Mandy Rice-Davies remarked in quite another context, "Well he would, wouldn't he".
OK.
Y


#### 3 See also
Y


#### 4 Notes
Y


#### 5 References
Y


### Conclusion
Y The article passes all requirements by my assessment. I will do the formalities later tonight. Well done Chiswick Chap for a fine article and one important to the understanding of the evolutionary process. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Feathers today serve the function of flight, but they were co-opted rather than adapted for this task, having evolved for an earlier purpose in theropods like Sinornithosaurus millenii, perhaps insulation."
Normally I'd change 'purpose' to 'function' with an edit summary of 'beware teleological language', but is it, in this context, deliberate? DS (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine here, teleology is the topic. BTW function is just as teleological, just has a misleading air of scienciness about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned that language in the "Reasons for discomfort" section is a WP:NPOV violation. If the reasons that biologists are uncomfortable with teleological language and explanation is that they have considered the arguments and found them wanting, then a term such as "rejection" would be more appropriate. Mainstream biologists may or may not be overly hasty in their rejection of this position, but it is unencyclopedic to dismiss the view of the scientific majority as a collective psychological shortcoming. Patrick (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but all that is meant is something weaker than outright rejection (which after all is a bodily metaphor implying vomiting something out). The biologist who is just a bit uncomfortable with a concept may use it uneasily or as rarely and as inconspicuously as possible, without going so far as definitely to reject it. All language is metaphorical, as for instance my use of "going" in the last sentence, which does not literally mean walking away... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Any language that does not present rejection of this view as a psychological shortcoming would be fine. Patrick (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
It already did not. If I write "Jack is uncomfortable with far-right politics", it does not mean Jack has psychological issues, it means he finds that politics threatening and dangerous. Jack no doubt could explicate this in historical terms, but I see any mention of the topic as making him uncomfortable and ruining our conversation. This really is a completely normal way of speaking in British English at least. I've avoided the word that confounds you, but all words that mean the same, as is required here, will have the identical potential with other readers.
Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

In this context, I think the revised version is clearer. Thanks for making the change. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
We'll see. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)