Kelemen D
Department of Psychology, 441 Moore Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Dec;3(12):461-468. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01402-3.
A fundamental aspect of adult thought is the 'teleological' tendency to assume that objects exist for a purpose. When seeing an unfamiliar artifact or strange anatomical part on an animal, the first question an adult will usually ask is 'what's that for?' - a query that assumes that the object can be teleologically explained in terms of its function. Current debate focuses on the origin and scope of teleological thought, and its role in children's emerging theories of the biological world. The bias to view objects as 'designed for a purpose' probably derives from children's privileged understanding of intentional behavior and artifacts. This makes children prone to a 'promiscuous teleology' in which artifacts and natural objects of all types are viewed as existing for a function. Because of this, I argue that we should be cautious about taking the existence of an early teleological bias as evidence that there is biological understanding that exists independently of a psychological construal of living things.
成人思维的一个基本方面是“目的论”倾向,即认为物体的存在是有目的的。当看到动物身上不熟悉的人工制品或奇怪的解剖部位时,成年人通常会问的第一个问题是“那是用来做什么的?”——这个问题假定该物体可以根据其功能从目的论角度进行解释。当前的争论集中在目的论思维的起源和范围,以及它在儿童对生物世界的新兴理论中的作用。将物体视为“为某种目的而设计”的倾向可能源于儿童对有意行为和人工制品的特殊理解。这使得儿童容易产生“泛目的论”,即所有类型的人工制品和自然物体都被视为因其功能而存在。因此,我认为我们应该谨慎地将早期目的论倾向的存在作为存在独立于对生物的心理学解释的生物学理解的证据。