[Taxacom] Fwd: Teleology Revisited

[Robinwbruce at aol.com]

Thanks for that.
 
I did not see character assassination, if it was, it was rather mild by my  
judgement, which may well be deeply flawed. Rather I saw pedantry with a  
purpose. 
 
Most biologists in the last 100 years have eschewed teleology, and most  
continue to so do. Russell in this respect was very unusual. He embraced it 
more  and more. The germ is in the  quote I gave; it grew in 'The Study of 
Living  Things', 1924,  and had its final expression  in the last  book which 
he wrote that was published during his own  lifetime, 'The Directiveness of 
Organic Activities', 1945. In an increasingly  mono-cultural world, such a 
perspective is of interest I believe, though I  may be in the majority of one 
only here. To me his  views demonstrate another dimension of biodiversity, 
which if we  ignore may cost us dear.
 
Cheers
 
Robin
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/11/2013 2:51:02 P.M. GMT Standard Time,  
aphodiinaemate at gmail.com writes:

The  reasons for David Winter´s choice of purpose rather than function?
Or the  reasons for some people picking on that particular sentence? I
haven´t the  foggiest to be honest. Who knows what goes on in people´s
heads when they  are writing? Maybe Mr Winter was thinking of cetaceans
at the  time?

My issue is not so much talking/writing for the sake of it. I  quite
enjoy it. I just think it was a form of character assasination. Had  it
been me, I would have just brought up the interchangeability  (not
endorsing it here, I agree that they are totally different) of  the
words "purpose" and "function" in casual conversation, and  the
potential pitfalls that this entails. No need to copy/paste  anybody´s
links. That would have been fair and a better way to introduce  the
topic. Instead it feels like the chap is on trial for choosing  the
wrong word in the thesaurus.

Best

Jason

On 11  March 2013 15:34,  <Robinwbruce at aol.com> wrote:
> Well, for  starters, what might be the right reasons?
>
>  Cheers
>
> Robin
>
>
> In a message dated  3/11/2013 2:04:15 P.M. GMT Standard Time,
> aphodiinaemate at gmail.com  writes:
>
> Oh dear. Have we become so obfuscated with words that  we fail to grasp
> sarcasm? Or maybe it is the inability to understand  double meaning
> that has started this thread? If some people find fault  in the use of
> ambiguous words (english, a pigdin language, is a rich  source) then
> maybe they would prefer them gone from the discourse  in
> biology/science.  David Winter´s choice of words may   have been
> unfortunate (it has certainly been painful), but it was a  blog, and in
> context his wording was not teleological. Curtis Clark  said it quite
> clearly and succintly:
>
> "Purpose" is  often used as an unfortunate substitute for "function" by
> biologists.  Sloppy writing doesn't always mean sloppy thinking.
>
> Yet here  we are, 4 days later, still arguing the socioreligious
> inuendo of  words. A fascinating topic I´m sure, but started for the
> wrong  reasons. Now fire away.
>
> Best
>
>  Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom  Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
>  methods:
>
> (1) by visiting  http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified  as:  
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms  here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in  2013.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom  Mailing  List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The  Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these  
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a  Google search specified as:   
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms  here

Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in  2013.