]> 2026-05-30T18:58:14+02:00 Annotation:Text:Teleology and the Concepts of Causation/Nl5z918z26 248 en ^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Nl5z918z26","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/preӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ31Ӻ","endOffset":444°Ӻ,"quote":"Biologists for a while were prepared to say a turtle came ashore and laid its eggs. These verbal scruples were intended as a rejection of teleology but were based on the mistaken view that the efficiency of final causes is necessarily implied by the simple description of an end-directed mechanism. … The biologists long-standing confusion would be removed if all end-directed systems were described by some other term, e,g,, ‘teleonomic,’ in order to emphasize that recognition and description of enddirectedness does not carry a commitment to Aristotelian teleology as an efficient causal principle. (Pittendrigh, 1958, p.393-394; italics in the original) \n\nErnst Mayr (1965) cited Pittendrigh and criticized him for not making a “clear distinction between the two teleologies of Aristotle”. The analysis of Aristotle’s ambiguity clearly justifies this criticism. In spite of it, Mayr was willing to adopt Pittendrigh’s new term, but supplied his own definition: “It would seem useful to rigidly restrict the term teleonomic to systems operating on the basis of a program of coded information” (p.42).","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°,^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1579286094376° 2020-01-17T19:34:54Z 2458866.3159028 2020-01-17T18:34:58Z 2458866.2742824 Text:Teleology and the Concepts of Causation/Nl5z918z26