Teleological explanation versus causal explanation
Peace and blessings. In past lectures, you have often stated that you hold two views: that everything has a reason, and that explanations in nature (and similarly for human actions) are also purposeful (and a causal explanation is an interesting anecdote).
It is clear to me that concepts can be brought together (for example, as Aristotle said, that there is an efficient cause and also a final cause for everything), but my question is how exactly does it fit together? Perhaps it would be useful to ask about a specific example – why did a tree grow by the stream? The causal answer is (I am not starting the chain from the beginning and of course I am not giving a full explanation) that snow fell, the temperature in the mountains dropped and therefore the snow changed its state of aggregation (according to certain laws of chemistry), therefore the water flowed down the river (according to certain laws of physics) and reached the ground, where a tree seed was and therefore it grew (according to certain laws of biology). If we take this example, I have difficulty finding the words for a final rather than causal explanation. The direction that comes to mind is that as soon as, for example, the temperature drops, the aspiration or purpose is built “into” the snow to change its state of aggregation, and then flow down to a certain place, and likewise it is “built” into the components of the tree to change in the direction of growth as soon as they “detect” water. Thus, in some way, the purposive explanation relies on and integrates with the causal explanation. My explanation sounds too meager, and even if it is, then it still emerges from the explanation that the cause is required for everything to move toward its purpose, and the cause is not an “interesting anecdote.” If so, I would appreciate your explanation.
Besides, I would be happy if you could contact me or briefly write here your position on a purposive explanation, as it is not as intuitive as a causal explanation (at least not nowadays), and therefore it is really interesting what the reasoning is for holding such a position that says that everything in nature has a purposive explanation.
Have a blessed week, and may we know good days.
First, thawing is a physical process, not a chemical one. 🙂
As far as I remember, I never said anything like that. Perhaps you mean my statement that in the non-physical sciences, explanations are causal and above that, explanations are purposive.
But there is no contradiction in the matter. These are two forms of description that can be equivalent. For example, Fermat’s principle is a purposive explanation of geometric optics, and it also has causal explanations (Snell’s law). It can be proven that one is the translation of the other (i.e., equivalent to the other).
I’ve mentioned this several times before. I think there’s one in Notebook 3, for example. Look there.
Thanks for the correction and the answer! (:
In the series on faith, chapter 26, minute 15:20 onwards, you said that the purposive explanation in the natural sciences and in general is the true one, while the causal explanation is an anecdote (and you gave an indication of this in the name of quantum physics, where explanations are only purposive). Your claim there is that indeed both explanations are equivalent, and what is the truth is a philosophical and not a scientific question, and to which you answered as I wrote.
If this is so and you do hold this position, could you present to me the reasons for it?
And regardless of your position, it is clear to me that there is no contradiction between the two explanations, but I would still be happy if you could explain how a purposive explanation is given and what its nature is in the example I gave and in general (what is the metaphysical explanation for the fact that water tends to flow downwards, exactly in the direction that gravity makes it move, it is really simpler to claim causality and the purposive explanation is the one that requires an explanation and is less intuitive these days. In the same way, how does the tree Does it grow purposefully? Is this information somehow “embedded” in it?
In physics, there are two types of explanation for almost all phenomena, but there are areas (like quantum theory) where there is only a purposeful explanation. Therefore, the purposeful explanation seems more comprehensive and true.
Regarding intuition, it is a different matter.
Regarding your example, it consists of many stages and therefore there is no single purposeful explanation. Each stage will have a different explanation. For example, when water flows downwards, this can be described as a gravitational force that pulls it there or as a tendency to flow to a minimum of potential energy.
I see. Would you describe this tendency as something that is ”embedded” in things in the world (that God has embedded in them to achieve some purpose)?
Also, is there a place you could direct me to to better understand the intuition behind the purposive explanation and its preference in some (or all) cases?
I have no idea. But those who oppose teleology probably perceive it that way and that is part of the reason for the opposition.
I have no intuition that purposive is better. There are simply phenomena for which there is no causal explanation at all, and therefore if one must necessarily choose, one must choose purposive.
What phenomenon has no causal explanation?
All the phenomena described in the Schrödinger equation.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
