Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: the Goal of evolution
Message-ID: <1043@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-May-86 10:48:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1043
Posted: Thu May  1 10:48:50 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 4-May-86 10:03:33 EDT
References: <487@bcsaic.UUCP> <1002@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17
Xref: linus net.bio:309 net.origins:3045 net.philosophy:4877

In article <238@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>     I agree it is one goal of science to reduce intentional statements to
>     `rigorous' causal statements. What I do not see is why such reduction
>     necessarily invalidates teleological explanation. 

Teleological explanations aren't really invalidated by reductionism: they are
still valid in that they still work, still have explanatory power.

But by more stringent criteria, such as Occam's Razor, they can be considered
invalidated.  The reason they are invalidated by Occam's Razor is that
essentially teleological explanations involve hidden men to explain function
as behavior.  And how do we explain the behavior of humans and the hidden
men?  Obviously they have hidden men in their heads too... ad nauseum.
Much like those 17th century drawings of homunculi inside the heads of sperm.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh