Il giorno giovedì 16 gennaio 2014 10:50:06 UTC+1, Aleph ha scritto:
>
> Saluti,
>
> Aleph
Consiglio inoltre per Aleph la seguente lettura di un importante testo di Ernst Mayr che mostra quanto equivoco è il termine "teleologia" che spesso viene frainteso, pensando erroneamente che "se c'è una teleologia allora c'è sempre una mente" (ragionamento errato che in passato anch'io avevo sostenuto in quanto credevo fosse ovvio):
http://evolution.freehostia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/mayr_1974_teleological_and_teleonomic.rtf
"Teleological language is frequently used in biology in order to make statements about the functions of organs, about physiological processes, and about the behavior and actions of species and individuals. Such language is characterized by the use of the words 'function', 'purpose', and 'goal', as well as by statements that something exists or is done 'in order to'. Typical statements of this sort are 'It is one of the functions of the kidneys to eliminate the end products of protein metabolism', or 'Birds migrate to warm climates in order to escape the low temperatures and food shortages of winter'. In spite of the long-standing misgivings of physical scientists, philosophers, and logicians, many biologists have continued to insist not only that such teleological statements are objective and free of metaphysical content, but also that they express something important which is lost when teleological language is eliminated from such statements."
Importante è anche il seguente passaggio che mostra che la teleologia come era intesa da Aristotele è oggi scientificamente legittima:
"No other ancient philosopher has been as badly misunderstood and mishandled by posterity as Aristotle. His interests were primarily those of a biologist and his philosophy is bound to be misunderstood of this fact is ignored. Neither Aritotle nor most of the other ancient philosophers made a sharp distinction between the living world and the inanimate. They saw something like life or soul even in the inorganic world. If one can discern purposiveness and goal direction in the world of organisms, why not consider the order of the Kosmos-as-a-whole also as due to final causes, i.e. as due to built-in teleology? As Ayala (1970) said quite rightly, Aristotle's "error was not that he used teleological explanations in biology, but that he extended the concept of teleology to the non-living world." Unfortunately, it was this latter teleology which was first encountered during the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries (and at that in the badly distorted interpretations of the scholastics). This is one
of the reasons for the violent rejection of Aristotle by Bacon, Descartes and their followers."
Ciao.
Received on Fri Jan 17 2014 - 12:37:36 CET