| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| causality:teleological_fallacy [15.09.26, 11:23:25] – [Constraints] sascha | causality:teleological_fallacy [17.09.26, 18:36:05] (current) – sascha |
|---|
| It also follows that a teleological view is more widespread in historical documents than in modern ones - especially if they date from a time when religion played a more important role in society than it does today. | It also follows that a teleological view is more widespread in historical documents than in modern ones - especially if they date from a time when religion played a more important role in society than it does today. |
| |
| For example, [[wp>Carl Linnaeus|Carl von Linné]] (also known as “Linnæus”) undoubtedly revolutionised botany and zoology in the 18th century with the systematics that bears his name. However, his approach of interpreting biological diversity as an //expression of divine design// was less convincing. By doing so, he fell prey to the very fallacy described here. Although this attitude was common in scientific research at the time, it did provoke criticism from other researchers, even during his lifetime. | For example, [[wp>Carl Linnaeus|Carl von Linné]] (also known as “Linnæus”) undoubtedly revolutionised botany and zoology in the 18th century with the systematics that bears his name. However, his approach of interpreting biological diversity as an //expression of divine design// was less impressive. By doing so, he fell prey to the very fallacy described here. Although this attitude was common in scientific research at the time, it did provoke criticism from other researchers, even during his lifetime. |
| |
| This also shows that the //teleological fallacy// is by no means an //exclusively// religious problem, but recurs time and again, also in science (and not only in biology either). | This also shows that the //teleological fallacy// is by no means an //exclusively// religious problem, but recurs time and again, also in science (and not only in biology either). |
| </aside> | </aside> |
| | |
| | ==== When is this actually a fallacy? ==== |
| | |
| | In many cases, seemingly “teleological” formulations are merely oversimplified metaphors or generalisations intended to make complex phenomena easier to understand. |
| | |
| | For example, if one were to explain to children that “predators exist to keep nature in balance”, this would not usually be a statement about the //teleology of life forms,// but rather a simplified explanation intended to make the relationship between predators and prey easier to understand. |
| | |
| | The same applies to //functional explanations// that refer to specific levels of abstraction. For example, “the heart is there to pump blood” is a correct statement, as this indeed is the function that the heart performs in a more highly developed organism. <u questionable "problematic">“The heart evolved to pump blood”</u> is far more problematic, as this implies evolution towards a specific goal and may, depending on the context, //oversimplify// the phenomenon. <s invalid "teleological fallacy">“The aim of evolution was to develop an organ capable of pumping blood”</s> would clearly be incorrect, as it attributes a sense of purpose to “evolution” that it simply //cannot// have. |
| | |
| | The issue, though, is not the phrasing employed when making assertions, for instance concerning the relationship between living organisms or organs. The problem is that these statements are either based on a misunderstanding of the concept of “function”, or are worded in such a way that they may lead others to form misconceptions. |
| |
| ==== Avoidance strategy ==== | ==== Avoidance strategy ==== |
