| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"S5d5yg5xfx","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ31Ӻ","startOffset":1481,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ31Ӻ","endOffset":2074°Ӻ,"quote":"Instead of clarifying the issue, this merely compounds the ambiguity, because ‘purpose’ was traditionally included in the proscription against teleology. In the twenty essays by prominent biologists collected in Studies in the philosophy of biology (Ayala & Dobzhansky, 1974), the term ‘teleonomy’ occurs only twice. It is mentioned by Monod himself, and also by Montalenti, who understands it as a substitute for the “finalism” which, he claims, “cannot be denied in biological affairs” (p.10). In contrast, disapproval of ‘teleology’ is emphasized by nearly all the contributors to the book.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1579286464045°
|
