Allan Gotthelf
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- January 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199287956
- eISBN:
- 9780191738296
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287956.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter identifies three categories of questions answers to which are required if one is to have a full understanding of Aristotle's teleology: Analysis, Basis, Extent. It then focuses on the ...
More
This chapter identifies three categories of questions answers to which are required if one is to have a full understanding of Aristotle's teleology: Analysis, Basis, Extent. It then focuses on the ‘Basis’ questions and presents a typology of recent interpretations of the ontological basis of Aristotelian natural teleology, which it labels (i) Strong irreducibility (e.g., Gotthelf); (ii) Regulative/pragmatic (e.g., Nussbaum and Sorabji); (iii) limited irreducibility (e.g., Charles); (iv) weak irreduciblilty (e.g., M. Bradie and F.D. Miller, Jr.); (v) intrinsic cause/eliminativism (e.g., S. S. Meyer). Views (iv) and (v) are assessed at some length. Meyer, it is argued, confuses Aristotle's grounds for rejecting his opponents’ view (eliminativism) with what he takes to be the basis of his own view (anti‐reductionism). In addressing view (v) it is it is proposed that, in the face of contemporary science, Aristotle would have retreated to something like the contemporary etiological view of biological teleology.Less
This chapter identifies three categories of questions answers to which are required if one is to have a full understanding of Aristotle's teleology: Analysis, Basis, Extent. It then focuses on the ‘Basis’ questions and presents a typology of recent interpretations of the ontological basis of Aristotelian natural teleology, which it labels (i) Strong irreducibility (e.g., Gotthelf); (ii) Regulative/pragmatic (e.g., Nussbaum and Sorabji); (iii) limited irreducibility (e.g., Charles); (iv) weak irreduciblilty (e.g., M. Bradie and F.D. Miller, Jr.); (v) intrinsic cause/eliminativism (e.g., S. S. Meyer). Views (iv) and (v) are assessed at some length. Meyer, it is argued, confuses Aristotle's grounds for rejecting his opponents’ view (eliminativism) with what he takes to be the basis of his own view (anti‐reductionism). In addressing view (v) it is it is proposed that, in the face of contemporary science, Aristotle would have retreated to something like the contemporary etiological view of biological teleology.
James Lawrence Powell
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- November 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780231164481
- eISBN:
- 9780231538459
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Columbia University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7312/columbia/9780231164481.003.0003
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
This chapter examines the efforts of various geologists to calculate the age of the Earth. Each calculation from geology depended on its own assumptions, and each gave at least a slightly different ...
More
This chapter examines the efforts of various geologists to calculate the age of the Earth. Each calculation from geology depended on its own assumptions, and each gave at least a slightly different answer. In the second half of the nineteenth century there was only one way, and that was to compare one's result with that of Lord Kelvin. The temptation proved irresistible to the geological calculators, who “produced an amazing variety of methods and an even greater homogeneity of results.” These include John Phillips, Charles Darwin, and T. Mellard Reade—all of whom employed the hourglass method. This chapter also looks at the calculations made by Samuel Haughton, Charles D. Walcott, and George Darwin to estimate the age of the Earth.Less
This chapter examines the efforts of various geologists to calculate the age of the Earth. Each calculation from geology depended on its own assumptions, and each gave at least a slightly different answer. In the second half of the nineteenth century there was only one way, and that was to compare one's result with that of Lord Kelvin. The temptation proved irresistible to the geological calculators, who “produced an amazing variety of methods and an even greater homogeneity of results.” These include John Phillips, Charles Darwin, and T. Mellard Reade—all of whom employed the hourglass method. This chapter also looks at the calculations made by Samuel Haughton, Charles D. Walcott, and George Darwin to estimate the age of the Earth.
