Huneman Philippe
Institut d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques, CNRS/Université Paris I Sorbonne, 13 rue du Four, 75006, Paris, France.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2019 Aug;76:101188. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101188. Epub 2019 Jul 17.
This paper elaborates a general framework to make sense of teleological explanations in Darwinian evolutionary biology. It relies on an attempt to tie natural selection to a sense of optimization. First, after assessing the objections made by any attempt to view selection as a maximising process within population genetics, it understands Grafen's Formal Darwinism (FD) as a conceptual link established between population genetics and behavioral ecology's adaptationist framework (without any empirical commitments). Thus I suggest that this provides a way to make sense of teleological explanations in biology under their various modes. Then the paper criticizes two major ways of accounting for teleology: a Darwinian one, the etiological view of biological functions, and a non-Darwinian one, here labeled "intrinsic teleology" view, which covers several subtypes of accounts, including plasticity-oriented conceptions of evolution or organizational views of function. The former is centered on traits while the latter is centered on organisms; this is shown to imply that both accounts are unable to provide a systematic understanding of biological teleology. Finally the paper argues that viewing teleology as maximization of inclusive fitness along the FD lines as understood here allows one to make sense of both the design of organisms and the individual traits as adaptions. Such notion is thereby claimed to be the proper meaning of teleology in evolutionary biology, since it avoids the opposed pitfalls of etiological views and intrinsic-teleology view, while accounting for the same features as they do.
本文阐述了一个用于理解达尔文进化生物学中目的论解释的通用框架。它依赖于一种将自然选择与优化感联系起来的尝试。首先,在评估了任何将选择视为群体遗传学中最大化过程的尝试所提出的反对意见之后,它将格拉芬的形式达尔文主义(FD)理解为在群体遗传学与行为生态学的适应主义框架之间建立的概念联系(没有任何实证承诺)。因此,我认为这为理解生物学中各种模式下的目的论解释提供了一种方法。然后,本文批评了两种解释目的论的主要方式:一种是达尔文式的,即生物学功能的病因学观点;另一种是非达尔文式的,这里标记为“内在目的论”观点,它涵盖了几种解释亚型,包括以可塑性为导向的进化概念或功能的组织观点。前者以性状为中心,而后者以生物体为中心;结果表明,这两种解释都无法对生物学目的论提供系统的理解。最后,本文认为,按照此处所理解的沿着FD路线将目的论视为广义适合度的最大化,能够使人们理解生物体的设计以及作为适应的个体性状。因此,这种概念被认为是进化生物学中目的论的恰当含义,因为它避免了病因学观点和内在目的论观点的相反缺陷,同时又能解释它们所解释的相同特征。