| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"M5h47of06m","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ33Ӻ","startOffset":579,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ33Ӻ","endOffset":1438°Ӻ,"quote":"In contrast, if archaeologists, in digging up remnants of a bygone civilization, find an unknown item and discover that it generates a flame when it is handled in a particular way, they may conclude that this was indeed its purpose. This would be conceived as the purpose of the item, in their description. \nThe descriptive purpose of is what Pittendrigh attempted to capture when he introduced the term ‘teleonomy’. In biology this would be a concept that pertains to an observed function of an organ or behavior and it in no way entails that the organ or behavior was designed for the particular function. Where evolution is concerned, then, there is no harm in using ‘purpose of’ as a descriptive tool, provided one does not mistake it for the purpose for, which would imply a guiding outside force that intentionally designed the thing one is describing.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1579289313290°
|
