Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:43:54.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purpose, Feedback, and Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Arthur E. Falk
Arthur E. Falk*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Western Michigan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay develops a theory of natural signs in order to show how evolutionary theory breathes new life into teleology. An argument to the contrary presented by Richard Taylor is refuted. The essay defends the view that the concept of negative feedback explicates purposiveness and that symbiotic evolution explains the occurrence of naturally adapted feedback systems. But evolution itself is not a teleological process, nor is it a negative feedback system. There is an exploration of the nature of the dissatisfaction we feel with an evolutionary account of purposiveness from which the fortuitous cannot be eliminated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 198 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

My thanks to E. Thomas Lawson and our students for the good discussions we had of these matters. I also profited from the thought-provoking negative feedback of my colleagues and of the referee.

References

Aristotle. Physics.Google Scholar
Barrell, B. G., Bankier, A. T., and Drouin, J. (1979), “A Different Genetic Code in Mitochondria”, Nature, vol. 282: 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broda, E. (1978), The Evolution of the Bioenergetic Processes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. (1974), “Evolutionary Epistemology” in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Delbrück, M. (1971), “Aristotle-totle-totle” in Monod, J., and Borek, E. (eds.), Of Microbes and Life, New York: Columbia University Press: 50–55.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. C., Scheppe, M. L., and Cox, E. C. (1970), “Fitness of an Escherichia Coli mutator gene”, Science 169: 686–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodins, F. S. (1963), Control Theory and Biological Systems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hanawalt, P. C., and Haynes, R. H. (1967), “The Repair of DNA”, Scientific American 216: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, T. (1893), “Evolution and Ethics” in Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1916: 46–116.Google Scholar
Jones, R. W. (1973), Principles of Biological Regulation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koshland, D. E. Jr. (1973), “Protein Shape and Biological Control”, Scientific American 229: 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manier, E. (1971), “Functionalism and the Negative Feedback Model in Biology”, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. K., and Beatty, J. H. (1979), “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”, Philosophy of Science 46: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestman, E. R., and Hill, R. F. (1973), “Population Changes in Continuously Growing Mutator Cultures of Escherichia Coli”, in Drake, J. (ed.), The Genetic Control of Mutation. Genetics supplement 73: 41–44.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1957), “Application of Servomechanism Theory to Production Control” in his Models of Man, New York: John Wiley and Sons: 219–240.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1965), “The Architecture of Complexity”, General Systems 10: 63–76.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1953), The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1963), This View of Life. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1872), The Principles of Psychology, ed. of 1872. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1905.Google Scholar
Stebbins, G. L. (1977), Processes of Organic Evolution, 3rd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. (1950), “Comments on a Mechanistic Conception of Purposefulness”, Philosophy of Science 17: 310–318; 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. (1966), Action and Purpose. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. (1974), Metaphysics, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971), “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism” reprinted in Clutton-Brock, T. H., and Harvey, P. H. (eds.), Readings in Sociobiology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1978: 189–226.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1971), “Some Problems with the Concept of ‘Feedback.'” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar