James G. Lennox

Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology

Preface Introduction Part I. Biology and Philosophy: An Overview: Introduction 1. The place of biology in Aristotles philosophy D. M. Balme 2. Aristotles biological universe: an overview Montgomery Furth 3. Empirical research in Aristotles biology G. E. R. Lloyd Part II. Definition and Demonstration: Theory and Practice: Introduction 4. Aristotles use of division and differentiae D. M. Balme 5. Divide and explain: the Posterior Analytics in practice James G. Lennox 6. Definition and scientific method in Aristotles Posterior Analytics and Generation of Animals Robert Bolton 7. First principles in Aristotles Parts of Animals Allan Gotthelf Part III. Teleology and Necessity in Nature: Introduction 8. Aristotles conception of final causality Allan Gotthelf 9. Hypothetical necessity and natural teleology John M. Cooper 10. Teleology and necessity D. M. Balme Part IV. Metaphysical Themes: Introduction 11. Aristotles biology was not essentialist D. M. Balme 12. Logical difference and biological difference: the unity of Aristotles thought Pierre Pellegrin 13. Kinds, forms of kinds, and the more and the less in Aristotles biology James G. Lennox 14. Animals and other beings in Aristotle L. A. Kosman 15. Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality Cynthia A. Freeland 16. Aristotle on the place of mind in nature William Charlton Index locorum General index.

Darwin was a teleologist

It is often claimed that one of Darwins chief accomplishments was to provide biology with a non-teleological explanation of adaptation. A number of Darwins closest associates, however, and Darwin himself, did not see it that way. In order to assess whether Darwins version of evolutionary theory does or does not employ teleological explanation, two of his botanical studies are examined. The result of this examination is that Darwin sees selection explanations of adaptations as teleological explanations. The confusion in the nineteenth century about Darwins attitude to teleology is argued to be a result of Darwins teleological explanations not conforming to either of the dominant philosophical justifications of teleology at that time. Darwins explanatory practices conform well, however, to recent defenses of the teleological character of selection explanations.

Self-Motion: From Aristotle to Newton

The concept of self-motion is not only fundamental to Aristotles argument for the Prime Mover and to ancient and medieval theories of nature, but it is also central to many theories of human agency and moral responsibility. In this collection of essays, scholars of classical, Hellenistic, medieval and early modern philosophy and science explore the question of the existence of self-movers and their motivations. They trace the development of the concept of self-motion from its formulation in Aristotles metaphysics, cosmology and philosophy of nature through two millennia of philosophical, religious and scientific thought.

Natural selection and the struggle for existence.

It is well known that Darwin’s conception of natural selection was derived from the idea of Malthus, that even the slowest breeding organisms tend to produce more offspring than can survive without eventually outrunning the food supply. . . . It was the differential mortality of the carriers of different genotypes composing a population that was supposed to make selection effective. Unfortunately, this process was also described by metaphors which were more picturesque than accurate, such as “struggle for life” and “the survival of the fittest” . . . In reality, the essence of selection is that the carriers of different genotypes in a population contribute differentially to the gene pool of the succeeding generations. The contributions of some genotypes are relatively greater on the average than the contribution of others in the same environment.’

Darwin's Methodological Evolution

A necessary condition for having a revolution named after you is that you are an innovator in your field. I argue that if Charles Darwin meets this condition, it is as a philosopher and methodologist. In 1991, I made the case for Darwin’s innovative use of “thought experiment” in the Origin. Here I place this innovative practice in the context of Darwin’s methodological commitments, trace its origins back into Darwin’s notebooks, and pursue Darwin’s suggestion that it owes its inspiration to Charles Lyell.

Biological Teleology: The Need for History

Teleology is a mode of explanation in which something is explained by appealing to a particular result or consequence that it brings about, and it has its roots in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle defended a natural teleology, free of the Platonic idea that the natural world is the creation of a divine, rational being of some sort, with a plan for his creation. The philosophical debate over teleological explanation in natural science during the Scientific Revolution was primarily between those who, under Platonic influence, defended theistic, creationist teleology and those who, for a wide variety of reasons, opposed the use of any sort of teleology in natural science, while the effective scientific use of Aristotelian teleological explanation was bearing fruit in the disciplines of anatomy, physiology and medicine. This analysis leads to a crucial distinction between two types of teleological explanations: (a) teleological explanations based on design, which suggest that a feature exists for some purpose because it was intentionally designed to fulfill it, and (b) teleological explanations based on a natural process which explains a feature’s presence in a population by appealing to that feature’s beneficial consequences for an organism. In this chapter, we describe a framework that can be implemented in order to help students be able to distinguish between design-teleology and selection-teleology. In doing this, an interesting connection is revealed: two major types of explanations found in conceptual development literature, animism and creationism, are identified as different types of teleology. Implications for science education research are discussed.

The Darwin/Gray Correspondence 1857–1869: An Intelligent Discussion about Chance and Design

The nature and place of teleological explanation in evolutionary biology is a central topic, as is the nature and place of chance, randomness, and accident. But these topics are often treated as if they had no connection to each other. This was not always the case. In this paper I explore an intense discussion between Charles Darwin and American botanist Asa Gray, carried on in correspondence and in publications, about the compatibility of chance and teleology in Darwins theory.

Aristotle on Norms of Inquiry

Where does Aristotle stand in the debate between rationalism and empiricism? The locus classicus on this question, Posterior Analytics II. 19, seems clearly empiricist. Yet many commentators have resisted this conclusion. Here, I review their arguments and conclude that they rest in part on expectations for this text that go unfulfilled. I argue that this is because his views about norms of empirical inquiry are in the rich methodological passages in his scientific treatises. In support of this claim, I explore such passages in On Parts of Animals and De anima. I argue that they reach distinct, though complementary, conclusions about the norms governing zoological and psychological inquiries.

Aristotle's Natural Science: the Many and the One

The concept of ‘science’ is used at the present time in two closely related but distinct senses: to refer to the structured knowledge of a domain, and to refer to the norm-governed investigation of a domain. This ambiguity provides us with two ways of thinking about the unity of science. We can ask whether the knowledge we have of a domain is a structured unity —for example, ‘Is there one biological theory that unifi es (perhaps via a single pattern of explanation) all our knowledge of the living world?’ Or, we can ask, ‘Is there a single set of methods that, if followed, will lead to knowledge of the domain in question?’ Aristotle’s Greek operates in a very different manner. The word  as it is used in the Posterior Analytics (APo) refers primarily to the structured knowledge of a domain, indeed knowledge structured by causal demonstration from fundamental principles. His vocabulary for investigation and inquiry, however, is rich and complex. And there is a great deal to be said for seeing the two books of that complex work as divided into an exploration of the structure of scientifi c knowledge in Book I and into the sorts of inquiry that are involved in the production of scientifi c knowledge in Book II. In favor of this view are the

Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology: Contents

Preface Introduction Part I. Biology and Philosophy: An Overview: Introduction 1. The place of biology in Aristotles philosophy D. M. Balme 2. Aristotles biological universe: an overview Montgomery Furth 3. Empirical research in Aristotles biology G. E. R. Lloyd Part II. Definition and Demonstration: Theory and Practice: Introduction 4. Aristotles use of division and differentiae D. M. Balme 5. Divide and explain: the Posterior Analytics in practice James G. Lennox 6. Definition and scientific method in Aristotles Posterior Analytics and Generation of Animals Robert Bolton 7. First principles in Aristotles Parts of Animals Allan Gotthelf Part III. Teleology and Necessity in Nature: Introduction 8. Aristotles conception of final causality Allan Gotthelf 9. Hypothetical necessity and natural teleology John M. Cooper 10. Teleology and necessity D. M. Balme Part IV. Metaphysical Themes: Introduction 11. Aristotles biology was not essentialist D. M. Balme 12. Logical difference and biological difference: the unity of Aristotles thought Pierre Pellegrin 13. Kinds, forms of kinds, and the more and the less in Aristotles biology James G. Lennox 14. Animals and other beings in Aristotle L. A. Kosman 15. Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality Cynthia A. Freeland 16. Aristotle on the place of mind in nature William Charlton Index locorum General index.