Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 553–565 | Cite as

Ernst Mayr's 'ultimate/proximate' distinction reconsidered and reconstructed

  • André Ariew
Article

Abstract

It's been 41 years since the publication of Ernst Mayr's “Cause and Effect in Biology” wherein Mayr most clearly develops his version of the influential distinction between ultimate and proximate causes in biology. In critically assessing Mayr's essay I uncover false statements and red-herrings about biological explanation. Nevertheless, I argue to uphold an analogue of the ultimate/proximate distinction as it refers to two different kinds of explanations, one dynamical the other statistical.

Cause Development Drift Explanation Fitness Mayr Probability Teleology Ultimate vs. Proximate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcock J. and Sherman P. 1994. The Utility of the Proximate-Ultimate Dichotomy in Ethology. Ethology 96: 58-62.Google Scholar
  2. Amundson R. 2001. Adaptation and Development: On the Lack of Common Ground. In: Orzack S.H. and Sober E. (eds), Adaptation and Optimality. Cambridge U. Press, pp. 303-334.Google Scholar
  3. Ariew A. 1998. The Probabilistic Character of Evolutionary Explanations. Biology and Philosophy 13: 245-253.Google Scholar
  4. Beatty J. 1994. The Proximate/Ultimate Distinction in the Multiple Careers of Ernst Mayr. Biology and Philosophy 9: 333-356.Google Scholar
  5. Bigelow and Pargetter 1988. Functions. Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  6. Enç B. 1979. Function Attributions and Functional Explanation. Philosophy of Science 46: 343-365.Google Scholar
  7. Francis 1990. Causes, Proximate and Ultimate. Biology and Philosophy 5: 401-415.Google Scholar
  8. Lewontin R.C. 2000. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Harvard U. Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lickliter R. and Berry T.D. 1990. Developmental Review 10: 348-364.Google Scholar
  10. Matthen M. 1997. Teleology and the Product Analogy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  11. Matthen M. and Ariew A. 2002. Two ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection. Journal of Philosophy 49: 55-83.Google Scholar
  12. Mayr E. 1993. Proximate and Ultimate Causation. Biology and Philosophy 8: 95-98.Google Scholar
  13. Mayr E. 1994. Response to John Beatty. Biology and Philosophy 9: 359-371.Google Scholar
  14. Mayr E. 1961. Cause and Effect in Biology. Science 131: 1501-1506.Google Scholar
  15. Nagel E. 1977. Teleology Revisted. Journal of Philosophy 74: 261-301.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenberg A. 1978. The Supervenience of Biological Concepts. Philosophy of Science 45: 368-386.Google Scholar
  17. Sober E. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sober E. 2000. Philosophy of Biology. 2nd edn. Westview Press.Google Scholar
  19. Walsh D. and Ariew A. 1996. A Taxonomy of Functions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26 Reprinted (1999) in D. Buller (ed.) Function, Selection, and Design, State University of New York Press, 257-280: 493-514.Google Scholar
  20. Walsh D., Lewens T. and Ariew A forthcoming 2002. Trials of Life. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Ariew
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations