Talk:Four causes

Modern science

According to this edit it is "frankly false" to say that "Apart from the "laws of nature" themselves, the causes in modern science are efficient causes and material causes in terms of Aristotle's classification. Over time, many rejected the idea of a final cause because there was too much disagreement." The editor proposes that "Most modern theories of evolution are unabashedly teleological". I believe this is absolutely incorrect, and in any case this controversial statement is also un-sourced, like the material removed. The removal material can be sourced quite easily if anyone has time. The fact that modern science removed discussion of the non mechanical ends was something openly stated by Bacon in the Novum Organum, and openly criticized by classicists and Christians over the last centuries. It remains a subject of discussion today that modern science treats all nature as simple "matter in motion". The assertion made to justify removing it appears to be a classic WP:FRINGE remark based on the sophisms of the intelligent design movement. If I am missing anything though, please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The causes come-up in other literature aside from traditional sciences. For example, Dimov discusses them in the context of understanding opportunity and entrepreneurship. See: Dimov, D. (2011). "Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35(1): 57-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00423.x (KLBM - IU Bloomington)

I see your citation from the pre-Darwin 1620s and raise you:

• Every time any biologist has stated any permutation of "Animal x evolved y to avoid predation"
• Confusion over the relevance of the intelligent design movement or WP:FRINGE.
• Along with these sources from the 1990s:

Lennox, James G. (1993). "Darwin was a Teleologist" Biology and Philosophy, 8, 409-21.

Ayala, Francisco (1998). "Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology." Nature's purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology, The MIT Press.

--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the section again tomorrow or adjust it to reflect these facts (unless these points can be satisfactorily addressed). Which do you think would yield a better article? I.e., do you think we should keep a section on the four causes in modern science? (I understand you may not have thought of Darwin's contributions to science and teleology's relevance to them. Bacon obviously couldn't have, and I certainly didn't prior to signing up for a course on the subject this semester [specifically, because why not, Ancient Philosophy 301: Teleology in Plato, Aristotle, and Contemporary Science]).--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Bacon and Darwinism, and with other arguments about whether teleology is present in modern science. Let me put it another way: It is controversial and certainly not a mainstream consensus to say that the theory of evolution is teleological. There might be minority accusations, coming from non biologists mainly, that the theory of evolution should be understood as teleological, i.e. that the mainstream is wrong, but this is all. If you change the article to say or imply that this is mainstream that would certainly be inappropriate. If you change the article to mention that there is some level of controversy in one particular field of modern science, that is closer to acceptable, but I think not really appropriate because simply way off topic for this article. Please remember that the remarks in this article are about modern science generally (hence the old quotation seeming appropriate to me; "modern science" has a meaning and it started in the 1600s) not about one theory. Teleological thinking slips into many aspects of human thought, but it is certainly a fringe opinion to say that this is typical of modern science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a fringe view. The articles I cited are written by respected biologists and science historians, and are about contemporary science. This in stark contrast to your own citation which is from the 1620s, and, at least in the section you quote, neither concerns 'final causes' nor science as it actually is (but only, as you point out, "natural science as it should work according to him"). To put my point more strongly: You have yet to provide any form of support for your position.

Again, statements of the form, "x evolved to allow y," are teleological and written in terms of 'final causes'. You cannot argue in good faith that these are uncommon scientific statements, or even that there are statements more common than these, in modern, mainstream evolutionary biology.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I come across as overly terse. I've run into some rather severe Straw man arguments in relation to WP:FRINGE recently and this brought the frustration back bit.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to examine how the same issue is handled here: [[1]]. But remember that this article here is only about the four causes and should stay on topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article supports my position quite directly: Teleology#Biology.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Or more generally: Teleology#Teleology_and_science--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In a sense you are not wrong. That is why I pointed to the Teleology article to help you get perspective. There is indeed enough material out there to say that "teleological language used by biologists" is a subject of controversy. Mainstream biologists do by a great majority think this controversy is rubbish, but I grant you that there is this questioning of the mainstream which is arguably not "fringe" and perhaps not all ideologically based, for example inspired by the Intelligent Design movement or some other movement. Those arguments all come down to pretty much how you presented it above: some clever person notices that biologists use teleological metaphors all the time, as if evolution has goals and does not work by matter in motion, and then they claim to have discovered that despite what biologists themselves think, they are really teleologists. Of course there is nothing about plans and aims in Darwinian evolution theory, but yes, biologists (and other scientists) being human, often speak and write as if nature has plans. This is called anthropmorphism. For example if a physicist says that the Earth protects itself from the solar winds hurtled towards it by the sun, does this mean the Earth and the sun are entities with aims? The authors you mention, and I could name more, clearly know they are making controversial claims.

Anyway, whatever the merits of this controversy, yes it does exist, and it should be mentioned in some places in Wikipedia. BUT, this article right here is not about evolution, and so fine points of whether evolutionary theory has teleological elements are not relevant. The section you have modified no longer fits in this article. This article is about the 4 causes and the point that WAS being made was that the 4 causes theory was almost universal during the Middle Ages, and it was then successfully attacked by people like Bacon, with the result that the theory is not commonly known or used anymore, at least not consciously. I could imagine, though I do not like it, that you could make a case that there are people who argue that the 4 causes are not dead, even if people do not realize it. But the damage Bacon did to the popularity of the theory is and was real and lasting and should be mentioned surely? Please read through this article and try to think about how it will look to someone who looks it up hoping to learn about the 4 causes. What you have done is not an improvement if you look at it that way. Can you try to fit your point into the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not believe that there is a controversy in contemporary modern science over this (i.e., I have not run into any scientists who would argue that teleology isn't important for it).

I see from your recent edit that you have been identifying teleology with intelligent design (in the literal sense). This is wrong, and I think that may be why you feel there is some kind of irrationality in modern science's adoption of the schema.

A telos in no way implies consciousness, deliberation, intelligence, thought, etc. You can check out Aristotle's Physics, Meteorology, Parts of Animals and/or Generation of Animals. He occasionally wrote about events having occured as a result of some conscious plan (for Aristotle, who seems not to have believed in God, only "humans" could engage in this kind of deliberation). In this case the goal (conceptualized in the plan) is the telos of the events leading up to its production. However, despite the fact that Aristotle states emphatically that nothing else has intelligence, consciousness or the ability to think in any way, he still argues that rain, plants, atoms (or elements), planets, etc., have telos. He explicitly argues that telos is not (necessarily) the result of thought. He states (Parts of animals I.1):

A seed has its adult plant as its telos iff barring any obstruction and under normal circumstances it would become the adult plant.

That's all it takes for seeds to have their corresponding adult plant as their telos. If that's all it takes, and if any modern scientist who isn't insane would agree with the right half of the biconditional, then any modern scientist who isn't insanse believes that a seed has a telos.

Also, from a purely 'Wikipedia policy' perspective, if "people like Bacon" have succesfully attacked the idea, or if "teleological explanation is uncommon or controversial in modern science," and you want to say so in the article, you need an explicit citation from a reliable source.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have honest doubts about the following, and whether they can be sourced:-

• That final causes are often claimed to be in-separable, even in Aristotle, from the idea of human-like plans and goals within nature.
• That Bacon and others like him argued against basing science on such ideas and are widely seen as having won that argument.
• That nearly all modern scientists see themselves as being on the side of Bacon rather than Aristotle in this.

Am I correct that this is what you think can't be sourced?

Can you also give a source for your assertions that Aristotle "seems not to have believed in God" and stated "emphatically that nothing else has intelligence, consciousness or the ability to think in any way"? Do you at least accept that these assertions are the subject of some possible debate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster. I am making no claims about the possibility of sourcing anything. I am merely requesting that you source any statement you do make as per the non-negotiable wikipedia policy of verifiability, which you are currently violating in your edits to this article (particularly, WP:BURDEN). (The two statements on Aristotelianism are [arguably] true, but are also not particularly relevant to my argument nor to your understanding of teleology w.r.t. this article, so I will decline to look for the relevant sources.) I'd like you to read everything I've written on this talkpage once more, as I think it addresses every point you've raised.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are making no claims about sourcing then why are you deleting stuff? Not everything needs sourcing in Wikipedia, only things which are not obvious. If you are saying that I need better sourcing, then I kindly request you to tell me which things are not obvious enough to go without sourcing. That is why I asked the above questions. Can you please answer them in a good faith way? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As per normal, truth-based argument: your first statement is false, as proven by arguments I've made and citations I've given. The seed teleology is an example given by Aristotle himself (who defined the term 'Final cause') and has nothing to do with humanity, patently. Tomorrow I'll find you the specific placement of one of Aristotle's explicit arguments that teleology in no way involves plans, intelligence, or consciousness (it's somewhere in Physics). Your second statement is , as far as I know, false. I haven't heard of any other arguments on the part of anyone who isn't Bacon. But I don't believe they don't exist. I do believe your third statement is false, if only because your first statement is, though separately as well. Finally, the facts I am stating here are not the result of one course. Teleology has been referenced as a tool for defining species in numerous courses here at Reed.

As per WP policy: WP:V "requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed." I have challenged all of the material you have placed in this article. Therefore, you need to provide a citation for all of it as per this policy.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and now your challenge is more clear. Thanks. It is apparently not clear to you how controversial these things you've been taught are in mainstream science and philosophy, and I did not understand that at first. Frankly, you seemed more knowledgeable than I realized so I thought you were just pretending not to understand. Anyway, concerning points 1, 2 and 3 you admit yourself that you have no sourcing or broad based knowledge either way, so you have a problem till you go get some sources and a better understanding. But please keep in mind, that:

• Quoting Aristotle is not enough in order to prove that there is NO debate more generally about whether teleology implies intention in nature, which is what your stronger edits have been demanding.
• Concerning what Aristotle himself thought, there is also heaps of room for debate, and trying to make this article take one side will fail. Even if Aristotle is sometimes thought of as atheistic, this is not universally agreed upon. (You have heard of St Thomas of Aquinas, the Prime Mover, right?)
• Concerning the logic of sourcing policy, obviously being able to cite two relatively unknown works by non biologists (which frankly seem quite consciously written as argument for a controversial position) can not be used for any statement claiming something about what is currently mainstream thinking amongst biologists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Francisco Ayala, one of the authors I've cited, is a biologist. You appear not to be seriously engaging me. As to your other two points: atheism has nothing to do with this debate. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. As per quoting Aristotle, he defined the term, so a quote from him seems pretty definitive. I am not making a claim about whether there is debate, which is why WP:BURDEN applies to the edits you wish to make and not to mine. Please find sources, then we can discuss them if you want.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Francisco Ayala's Wikipedia article makes biology look like a pretty small part of what he is into, but anyway I did not need to say "non biologists". My point is that a strong position, like saying that "biologists all think x" needs much stronger sourcing than a weak wording like "some biologists are said to think x". Concerning Aristotle's atheism or non-atheism, I believe you introduced it into the discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you have written by the way, and to me it increasingly seems like your main problem is just that your knowledge base in this area is very much based upon a particular course you took, and not broad enough. This is why I need you to help me explain what you think is not obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning things which are arguably true, please consider that both of us should represent things which are arguably true as arguably true and not true in any simple un-contested sense. This is how I have been trying to compromise, and frankly I think I've gone way further than I should. Certainly you can expect the article to be changed by others eventually. Saying that modern science uses the concept of a final cause is absolutely not a common or uncontroversial opinion. I guarantee you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. This edit has a wrong edit summary. It should say that there is debate on this subject, but reference to all discussion about whether teleology implies intention is only being mentioned because of the relatively controversial position being included in the current version, claiming that teleology does not imply it. It is also not sourced currently, and could be removed entirely. (That Aristotle referred to adulthood as a telos does not clarify whether he sees something like intelligence and goals in or behind nature.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And oops, apologies if I hit 3R amongst the various edits. I have reverted the last revert as you requested, but obviously this is neither here or there concerning the on-going discussion. The current version which I have reverted to implies that there is no debate at all about whether modern biology is teleological, and this simply can't remain. I do accept that you may actually believe this, but please consider whether you have sources to justify such an extreme position. Your words above in this discussion seem to make it clear that you at least realize that people don't all agree with this? Wikipedia should not take a position in any on-going debate. It should report the mainstream as the mainstream.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, So far as I can see, my view is the mainstream and yours is WP:FRINGE. You have yet to give any citations for your view. I do not see any ongoing debate whatsoever. My position is not extreme, it is accurate, sourced and widely accepted. Saying that you are right does not make it so.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You have not shown enough sources to show that it is widely accepted. Demanding that Wikipedia states that a position is widely accepted, or the only position, needs pretty strong secondary or tertiary sourcing, especially if you are being challenged (to use your word from above). For me to ask that you weaken the wording by putting in "some people think" type qualifications does not demand more sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not making nor have made a claim in the article itself about whether any position whatsoever is widely accepted. I do not need a source for that claim because I am not making it. However, you do need a source because you want to make the claim. Instead of arguing about whether your favored view x is mainstream or common or even argued whatsoever (as is I believe that none of the former is the case), find a source and bring it here, eh?--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But you are insisting that Wikipedia say that "Explanations in terms of final causes remain common in modern science however, including contemporary evolutionary biology. Statements like "x evolved y to avoid predation" express a final causes (viz., "avoiding predation")." You have consistently removed any weakening of this language such "it has been argued". For example here. This does seem to mean that you are insisting that Wikipedia should say that this is an unchallenged position in biology, which I think even your own words on this talkpage show that you realize not to be correct. You at least know that it is challenged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You yourself challenge it. That's all, so far as I can tell.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In this discussion right now there are two people and so the fact that we are challenging each other, as pointed out by you, is relevant. We need to try to convince each other. Concerning the world outside of Wikipedia, I am still having trouble believing you can really think that teleology within biology is not at least a little controversial????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the controversy here, as hard as it may be to believe. The teleology article does mention that Daniel Dennett does not believe science should involve itself with Final causes, but even he, the bastion of scientific realism, notes that teleology is (regrettably, for him) common in modern evolutionary biology. I'm not saying it's not controversial, I'm only saying that I believe it's not and have yet to find anyone arguing the contrary position. If you find such a source you have my blessing to alter the article accordingly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You say you honestly "don't see the controversy", and then you say "I'm not saying it's not controversial". Anyway, it should be easy to resolve. If there is controversy then the Wikipedia article must reflect that and not be written in any way which implies there is no controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, you say that as far as you know I am the only person who challenges the idea that Darwinism uses the concept of final causes. I just noticed that the first sentence of the abstract of the Lennox source you cite says this: "It is often claimed that one of Darwin's chief accomplishments was to provide biology with a non-teleological explanation of adaptation." So how did you come to claim that you know of no opposition to this view? Can you please ensure that you insert no changes which imply no ignorance of the fact that this is not universally accepted?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm didn't notice that. I've just altered the article accordingly.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that rather obvious problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly undue emphasis here on teleological thinking in evolutionary biology. It's common currency in biology that teleological statements are not to be taken literally, and can always be replaced by non-teleological (but cumbersome) statements. Evercat (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation you added. I agree, and I think you've helped the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that assent to the phrase, "this seed would become the adult plant under normal circumstances," (Aristotle Parts of Animals I.1) is all it takes to assent to a teleological explanation, it is common currency in biology that (certain) teleological statements are to be taken seriously and literally. But I don't have an explicit non-Aristotle source for this on hand so that'll have to wait. Thanks for your additions to the article.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with the conclusion that this sentence amounts to teleology. Indeed most biologists do not agree. But anyway, for the purposes of this discussion here, most important is that you have to realize that it is not accepted by other Wikipedia editors to be obviously true.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think this whole debate should be shipped out of this article and sent over to Teleology. Evercat (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is about a controversial fine point within one part of modern science. It should [EDIT: insert "not"] be taking up a major part of discussion on this article. The only point relevant here is that modern science at least tries to avoid teleology. Going one step further and saying that a controversial minority of people believe it fails is possibly acceptable also, but going any further than that seems inappropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:V. Frankly, I don't care about your opinion.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss out the word not in the above paragraph? :) Evercat (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, sorry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As a practicing evolutionary biologist who practices evolutionary biology with other evolutionary biologist, I can say that this evolutionary biologist most certainly does not see evolution as teleological, nor do any of the titans in the field. E. Mayer states that there was teleology in evolutionary biology pre-modern synthesis, however, since then "[Darwin] gave up teleology soon after he adapted natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change (119)", And an even better one "... by the time of the evolutionary synthesis of the 1940s, no competent biologist was left who still believed in a final causation of evolution, or of the world as a whole." and "belief in final causes hold a far greater sway outside of biology than within." This is the man, who according to wikipedia was " one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists." I think it highly inappropriate to attempt to label his views as on the fringe of evolutionary biology. [From E. Mayr "The idea of teleology" ] For the sake of thoroughness, I should point out that Mayr actually distinguishes between a number of forms of teleology,

The problem (according to both Ayala and Mayr) is that teleology isn't particularly well defined. The word Teleos has two distinct meanings in greek: Teleos as endpoint and teleos as goal, and these are quite different. Both Ayala and Mayr emphasize that biologist must distinguish between them. Aristotle uses the word teleos to imply a goal which is anticipated when an activity or process begins. However, evolution has no goals. Evolution does not even have the goal of a more fit organism, since evolution can decrease the fitness of organisms under numberus special circumstances (evolution does not anticipate the future, genetic elements can proliferate at the expense of organism fitness, Muller's ratchet etc.) So, evolution has no goals. However, like any other physical process, evolution has an end point. Mayr sees it as silly to set evolution apart from any other physical process: if a falling rock is not teleological, then neither is the adaptation of an organism. Ayala sees this distinction as valid, since many features of an organsism produce the effect of increased fitness. However, Gould and Eldrige have argued that teleological... and with that I am going to bed. Kthanxsbye.

As to the relevance of Aristotle's opinion as to whether biological process were teleological, Recall that Aristotle had a pre-scientific understanding of biology. He believed in vital forces and really didn't have the mechanistic/materialist view of biological process that we have today. While to him, the growth of an oak seed may have been teleological, it does not follow that if he shared our modern understanding of the process of growth, he would still consider it teleological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.3.5 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point that I believe Bacon was lamenting the fact that natural science was only focused on the material and efficient causes, not insisting upon the point. Anyone can read his book on induction, the "New Instrument" (Novum Organum), and see that his view of natural science was a steady progression of our understanding formal causes. I think in both works, "The Advancement of Learning," and "Novum Organum," he was actually advocating a search into formal causes. This quote from Book 2, Aphorism 2 should solidify that point:

"II. In what an ill condition human knowledge is at the present time, is apparent even from the commonly received maxims. It is a correct position that “true knowledge is knowledge by causes.” And causes again are not improperly distributed into four kinds; the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final. [p. 120] But of these the final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences, except such as have to do with human action. The discovery of the formal is despaired of. The efficient and the material (as they are investigated and received, that is, as remote causes, without reference to the latent process leading to the form) are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science. Nor have I forgotten that in a former passage I noted and corrected as an error of the human mind the opinion that Forms give existence. For though in nature nothing really exists beside individual bodies, performing pure individual acts according to a fixed law, yet in philosophy this very law, and the investigation, discovery, and explanation of it, is the foundation as well of knowledge as of operation. And it is this law, with its clauses, that I mean when I speak of Forms; a name which I the rather adopt because it has grown into use and become familiar." Wikisource:Novum_Organum/Book_II_(Spedding) Italics were in the original.

If I'm correct, then we should consider changing the beginning of the "The four causes in modern science" section. 24.10.8.217 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Aristotle's Physics

Just concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_causes&diff=349592089&oldid=349590696 this quote:

"This is most obvious in the animals other than man: they make things neither by art nor after inquiry or deliberation. That is why people wonder whether it is by intelligence or by some other faculty that these creatures work,--spiders, ants, and the like... It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would produce the same results by nature. If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature."

...I would point out that Aristotle is implying that it is quite reasonable to think there might be a purpose somewhere at work in nature. He compares the animals to arts, which do not have purposes themselves, the humans who perform them do. They would not exist if it were not for human purpose though, so purpose needs to be present somewhere even if not in the agent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans who perform animals? No. Animals themselves perform tasks for the sake of specific outcomes without deliberation. That's what the passage is saying.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans perform arts, obviously, and Aristotle uses this as an example of how there can be apparent purpose WITHOUT any apparent deliberation in the AGENT. Why is the word agent included? Please do not make the discussion difficult. I am honestly trying to discuss this with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to make the discussion difficult, and I'd like to discuss this. Aristotle is fun, more or less. You are obviously well-read and intelligent, I just think that this happens to be an issue on which you were mistaken.

Aristotle is not using the word agent to mean 'human'. He's presently discussing seeds.

Aristotle's point is that an art itself (e.g., ship-building) does not deliberate, and so if this art were present in an inaminate object, the inaniminate object would not have to deliberate to carry out that art. 'Plant-growing' is such an art. It can be carried out by a thinking being (e.g., a human), but it can also be carried out by a non-thinking being (e.g., a seed). This is possible because 'plant-growing' is not in itself deliberative. I.e., Teleology in no way implies intelligence.

That's the thought expressed in the quote by Aristotle. (further preemptive clarification: as can be derived from the quoted passage, when an art is in a thing [e.g., when plant-growing is in a seed], that thing carries out the art "by nature." On the other hand, when art is the product of a rational being [e.g., when plant-growing is decided upon and carried out by a human], that human is not acting "by nature" [but 'according to art']). Heyitspeter (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to start with, Aristotle is not ever saying that teleology in no way implies intelligence. He never writes this clearly, and indeed he never uses the word teleology of course. And you are using the word art wrongly I think. The seed is moved by something like art, but art is human. Aristotle also does not contrast art and nature like you do. (You are a modern person, and thinking like him is difficult for all of us.) He even describes art as finishing off nature's work.

Here is a more literal translation by Joe Sachs, which makes the critical importance of the agent/mover distinction in the passage much more clear, and shows how far Aristotle is from modern biology and how it is that Intelligent Design can claim Aristotle as a true influence even if he is infinitely more subtle and open minded:-

And in general, art in some cases completes what nature is unable to finish off, but in others imitates nature. If then, what comes from art is for the sake of something, it is clear that what comes from nature is too, for the series of things from art and from nature are alike, each to each, in the way that the later things are related to the earlier. This is clear more of all in the other animals, which do nothing by art, inquiry, or deliberation; for which reason some people are completely at a loss whether it is by intelligence or in some other way that spiders, ants, and such things work. [big snip] It is absurd to think that a thing does not happen for the sake of something if we do not see what sets it in motion deliberating. Surely even art does not deliberate. If shipbuilding were present in wood, it would act in the same way as nature does, so if being for the sake of something is present in art, it is also present in nature. This is most clear when someone practice medicine on himself; for nature is like that. That, then, nature is a cause, and in this way, for the sake of something, is clear.

Note, there is something setting animals and plants in motion, we just do not see it in the animals and plants; and nature "acts", in a way equivalent to a ship builder, but not wood on its own. Nature as a whole is like a doctor practicing his art upon himself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The 'interpretation' I provided is in perfect agreement with the Sachs translation as well (though where you get the idea that Sachs' is 'more literal' is beyond me).

You mistake my meaning. I have never contrasted art and nature. I stated that, according to Aristotle, art in an object makes the object 'by nature'. I did not contrast an object 'by nature' with an art; on the contrary, I compared them.

On an unrelated note, I do not see how your own argument can proceed. Humans do not deliberate for plants, as you seem to suggest.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning literal translations, Sachs tends to be quite literal, but maybe it was not relevant here. I did not mean that to be a point.

Concerning your closing, I am stumped because you honestly seem to be misreading me in a way which I find hard to imagine. The question we are discussing is whether Aristotle anywhere claims that purposes exist without deliberation of some kind similar to what we know in humans. The quote above might be consistent with lots of things but it does not say that it is possible to have one without the other, which is the strong statement you want Wikipedia to have in it. But yes, obviously he does not say humans do the thinking for nature. Throughout his works though, at the very least you can say that he takes the idea of non human intelligence(s) within nature very seriously. I do not know any place where he clearly argues against the existence of non human intelligence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This article discusses Aristotle's view that humans exclusively are rational, and not animals [2]--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, are you honestly saying that I have claimed that Aristotle says non human animals are rational?? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yeah I think I was confused. My link didn't really back my statement. Noted, and sorry about that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Various points which were considered not obvious and possibly needing sourcing

The three following points come from discussion above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1. That final causes are often claimed to be in-separable, even in Aristotle, from the idea of human-like plans and goals within nature.

Heyitspeter says above he can give sourcing from Aristotle to show that at least in Aristotle this is not the case. It seems to be already in discussion above. I leave it out here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

2. That Bacon and others like him argued against basing science on such ideas and are widely seen as having won that argument.

Heyitspeter says this is false as far as he knows. To me it seems so well known. I refer for more references to the Mechanism (philosophy) article as a start. It mentions the obvious ones, Descartes, Hobbes, and then goes into contemporary times.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

3. That nearly all modern scientists see themselves as being on the side of Bacon rather than Aristotle in this.

As mentioned above, it is of course difficult once there is a challenge, for anyone to prove what is mainstream in such a big field. A cop out is to make sure that the Wikipedia avoids making such claims. However I do believe that in this case the mainstream position has been so widely discussed that it can effectively be sourced in strong tertiary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again. It would help if you stopped writing about the issue and started sourcing the answer. I am not going to comment on (1)-(3), regardless of my opinion on them. Find sources if you can. Bring them here. We can discuss them. To alter the article without these sources would be in violation of WP:V.--Heyitspeter (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I did mention the Mechanism article as containing many sources. Remember part of my problem getting sourcing for you is my surprise at the strange selection of things you claim not to have knowledge of. For someone to be interested in this subject but to have so little idea of what mainstream thinking is, is difficult to take account of. I did not go to your college. But anyway, as a starting point while discussion is continuing Wikipedia policy puts the burden of sourcing proof on anyone wanting Wikipedia to make a strong statement such as "modern biologists commonly use final causes", and not the people who want to weaken such statements to things like "it has been argued". Don't you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to cheat and use someone elses work in gathering information on this:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

Another way of looking at the Darwin question

I have been reviewing this question about Darwin, and the controversy in recent sources about whether he believed in final causes. It strikes me that the following might be common ground people can agree upon:

• Darwin is not a teleologist or believer in final causes as these terms were generally understood in the middle ages.
• Medieval Aristotelianism is basically what people think of when they think of the 4 causes. Teleology is not a word Aristotle uses for example.
• So in that sense at least Darwin is not a teleologist as usually understood.
• Some of the more intelligent discussion about Darwin being a teleologist is actually a bit of a word game (not necessarily a bad thing in philosophical discussion) about what final cause should really mean, and what Aristotle really meant.

This is a classic problem in many Aristotle and Plato related subjects, and a good way to get around it is often to distinguish Aristotle and Aristotelianism. Does this make sense though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'Aristotle's philosophy' and 'Aristotelianism' can be distinguished productively. However, to my knowledge all of these bullet points are false, and I have provided reliable sources against several of them. If you want to make these assertions you need to find sources for them. WP:OR applies to talkpages as well. I'm sorry.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, quite honestly I am not sure you read what you are calling false. Please be cautious about saying people have to source everything they say UNLESS you really think it is not obvious. (Such things happen, so I mention it.) I am having trouble sometimes to work out when your are being serious, and I just say this to avoid giving the wrong impression. The remark you have just made means the following:

• You believe Darwin was a teleologist in the sense understood when we speak of medieval teleology?
• Aristotle used the word teleology? (How do I find a source for him not doing that? :) )
• There are no distinctions between different types of telelogy which are discussed in the types of sources you are citing which argue that Darwinism is teleological?

It might help if you could confirm this is your understanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am being serious. I am being cautious, and what you are arguing is not obvious. I have expressed this sentiment several times before and have provided sources for the contrary view. As to your questions:

1. I believe that no one can discuss a species without appealing to teleology. A fortiori Darwin was a teleologist.
2. No, Aristotle did not use the word 'teleology', he used the word τέλοϛ [3]. I imagine no one anywhere has ever used that term in precisely the same way, and do not see the relevance of the point being made.
3. I do not believe this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem in this discussion is the small amount of reading you have done, but at the very least you need to read the sources you cite as the ones you know. They make it clear that they are part of a controversy, and not just an explanation of what everyone knows. The way you have written your points is now increasingly explicitly about what you personally believe and not about what is mainstream in reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

While you've been making WP:OR and WP:NOT#ESSAY violations on the talkpage I've been adding well-sourced material to the article itself. I suggest you do the same.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Darwin, teleology and final causes

The "modern science" section seems rather heavily based on the views of James G. Lennox about Darwin. This is odd, as the medieval interpretations don't seem to be described, and the views of early scientists such as John Herschel and William Whewell were much more influential on the development of ideas about teleology and causes. I've included some info on that in the sub-articles on Darwin, if you're interested.

Lennox apparently says that Darwin uses the term 'Final Cause' consistently in his Species Notebook, Origin of Species and after. This is puzzling, as Darwin uses the term three times in On the Origin of Species of 1859, in what seems to be two distinct meanings – on p. 435 he writes of morphology and homology, "Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. ... On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;—that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant." On pp. 216–217 he says "It is now commonly admitted that the more immediate and final cause of the cuckoo's instinct is, that she lays her eggs, not daily, but at intervals of two or three days...", and on p. 448 he writes "With respect to the final cause of the young in these cases not undergoing any metamorphosis, or closely resembling their parents from their earliest age, we can see that this would result from the two following contingencies...". Darwin is writing for an audience familiar with the doctrine of final causes, we need to show what that doctrine was and not just say he used the term consistently.

The article currently implies that the place of teleology in modern science is demonstrated by Asa Gray's 1874 Sketch in Nature (republished in The American Naturalist later that year, and Darwin's response to Gray about the article,[4] particularly the second letter where Darwin welcomes the two last paragraphs on teleology. As Sara Joan Miles notes in more detail, what Gray had written was "Apropos to these papers, which furnish excellent illustrations of it, let us recognise Darwin's great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology: so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology.", but Darwin's view was complex and continued to waver, later writing "[I]f we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to look at it as the outcome of chance--that is, without design or purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, ..." That last source gives a useful oversight of this complex theological issue of the 19th century, and we shouldn't oversimplify. "As Darwin's questions about the man killed by lightning and the gnat eaten by a swallow had indicated, Darwin could not reconcile the seeming randomness of certain particular events with an overall, foreordained plan. Either everything was determined or nothing was." Gray's essay Evolutionary teleology may also assist in trying to grasp some of these debates, as might another squib which Darwin sent on to Nature. . . .dave souza, talk 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, What is Darwinism? . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Quite interesting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A possible interpretation of Darwin's concept of teleology is presented here:

http://web.missouri.edu/~ariewa/Teleology.pdf Aldo L (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Adding Section

Notice of intention to add a section within Four Causes. I recently read a piece of work which thoroughly analyses the Four Causes. Required for university course project--Smlm92 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Four Causes: In The Question Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger explains the four causes as follows:

causa materialis is the material or matter causa formalis is the form or shape the material or matter enters causa finalis is the end causa efficiens is the effect that is finished. Upon explaining them in this formal state as well as with the example of a silver challis, Heidegger raises the questions of why just these four causes, how was it determined that they exclusively go together, what exactly unifies them and what makes causa finalis and causa efficiens different. These are important questions to analyze and attempt to answer or else the definition of technology will remain obscure. He explains the necessity of the four causes as they allow for the material or matter is not present a path to become present. Heidegger argues that the ability to create a final product using these four steps is what unifies them as an exclusive group.

This group of causes arrives Heidegger at poiesis: the bringing forth of something out of itself. This process of bringing forth is revealing or aletheia, a key function of technology. Heidegger explains it as thus:

"Whoever builds a house or a ship or forges a sacrificial chalice reveals what is to be brought forth, according to the terms of the four modes of occasioning." Notice the word reveals instead of manufacturing as Heidegger argues that manufacturing is not what brings forth a material but the actual reveal.

Highlighted is the issue of social and technological progress along with society with the four causes. One of his examples is the words through translation from the language of the Romans, Greeks and to today have created some issues with the definitions of these words. Most notably he emphasizes the need to clarify the difference between words that now have different meaning through these translations. In particular he uses the words responsible and indebted as they relate to the four causes and the creation process. Another issue arising with progress of technology and society is the techniques. Heidegger presents the argument that even though these Greek ideas work with techniques of handicraftsmen, they are essentially outdated with modern machine powered technology as they are based on modern physics. Heidegger also points out though that the two work hand in hand. Modern physics is dependent on progress and building new materials in order to create exact science modern physics Smlm92 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The physics section

This section seems to need a tag, but I am not sure which. It might be trying to say something important but I can not decipher, and there are no sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a cautionary note. And thank you for the connector sentences you gave us earlier. They added perspective, at least for me. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The physics section intends to indicate that Aristotle invented the idea of classifying explanations, and his classification still works today, even for subjects about the content of which he was wrong or ignorant. Philosophy is about principles of reasoning, not factual details. Aristotle was a philosopher as well as a polymath. The physical points in the section are common knowledge. Strictly one could demand detailed sourcing. I thought links would be enough. I have made some edits that intend to address the possible problems.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree about the 'common knowledge'. Even if the 'names' of the subjects are bandied about, the concepts in the subjects in physics are subtle, even completely contrary to 'Naïve physics'. And Aristotle missed important pieces of what we now call science. John von Neumann (Collected Works 6 101) noted it took 1000 years to make progress in natural science, specifically in its categories. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You might consider putting this contribution on another page, failing a citation in which Bohr uses Aristotle for some point.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right that the ideas are not common knowledge. I was exaggerating. They are common knowledge only in that area of physics.

Yes, you are right, Aristotle missed vast amounts of what we now call science.

But I was intending to look from a different viewpoint, that of the general structure of explanation. The "present state" as defined by quantum mechanics does not have enough information to allow deterministic prediction. To find determinism in the laws of quantum mechanics, one needs to specify both the initial and final conditions, which rules out prediction. But it does have the efficient-cause / final-cause logical structure.

I would like to think about what Aristotle got right in philosophy as well as about what he got wrong in physics. I hope you may accept as sufficient my edit that says he got plenty wrong? Personally, I am impressed by Aristotle's efforts to collect and analyse biological specimens; that was admirable, even if rudimentary, empiricism. The big gap in his methodology was the absence of the controlled experiment.

Seeing your latest comment, I will have a look to see if Bohr has the relevant stuff. Heisenberg spent some effort on philosophy, including looking at Aristotle. I will look at that too. Please indulge me with a little time.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Now I see your tags, I have removed the section.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You might consider placing the material in a page about John von Neumann's contribution to the foundations of quantum mechanics. His friend Stanisław Ulam noted that von Neumann seemed to get the most satisfaction from his philosophical asides in that book. And the insights of Bohr etc. have been characterized by Ulam: "an attempt to make a rational presentation of a physical theory, which as originally conceived by the physicists, was based on non-universally communicable intuitions" Salim (2007) p.520 via JSTOR. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this.

Just for the record, Heisenberg writes

"In order to obtain a solid basis for scientific thinking, Aristotle in his thinking started to analyse the forms of language, the formal structure of conclusions and deductions independent of their content. In this way he reached a degree of abstraction and precision that had been unknown up to that time in Greek philosophy and he thereby contributed immensely to the clarification, to the establishment of order in our methods of thought. He actually created the basis for the scientific language."

I think this is Heisenberg thinking retrospectively, not during his initial inventive activity.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Since writing the just foregoing comment, I have read more writing by Heisenberg. I now think he had a major interest in Aristotle's thinking from times even before he studied at university level. He had Aristotle in mind all along, including his initial inventive activity.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

explanation, τἐλος means 'completion' in a wide sense

I think the change of wording from "cause" to "explanation", for example here, is a good move. I am not convinced by the article by Kauffman et al.. I think that Aristotle's τἐλος was far more general than mere purpose. I think the word τἐλος means 'completion' in a wider sense than 'purpose'. I am not disputing their view that for 'purpose' to apply, one may expect agency in support. But I think that purposeful completion is only one kind, yes, an important kind, but still, only one kind, of completion.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"… cause" or "… explanation"

I disagree with the change from "… cause" to "… explanation". The introduction of the neologisms "Material explanation", etc. does nothing to improve the article, particularly since discussions of the four causes by name has long been the standard form in philosophical or historical scholarship. A Google NGram search shows that these neologisms are seldom found in the published literature, in contrast to the well established names of the four causes. The neologism that is most commonly found is "final explanation", and a cursory search of the examples shows it is used in the common meaning of the last (or final) explanation, not the Aristotelian final cause.

Clicking on one of the first linked footnotes in this article (Falcon, Andrea. Aristotle on Causality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008), yields the following use of the common names:

"In Physics II 3 and Metaphysics V 2, Aristotle offers his general account of the four causes. This account is general in the sense that it applies to everything that requires an explanation, including artistic production and human action. Here Aristotle recognizes four types of things that can be given in answer to a why-question:

• The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
• The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
• The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
• The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools."

Rather than allow restoration to become impractical as further changes are added, I propose to restore the article to its state before the transformation from "… cause" to "… explanation". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I also have some concerns about the switching away from the traditional terminology. I do see that it can be considered important (as often with Aristotelian terminology) to point out that this was not originally a "technical" word but just an every day Greek word. You could argue that even that is not relevant to the article which actually is about a technical word in English. But I would counter argue that philosophical discussion often needs to get in touch with its roots to examine where a concept came from. Its arguments span centuries and some are maybe more about the examination of a concept than any search for a "solution".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Since I posted my original note, I've done some more thinking about what disturbed me about the change from "… cause" to "… explanation". I found a nice description of Greek concepts of cause in G. E. R. Lloyd's Magic Reason and Experience (Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1978). Lloyd quotes this passage from the Hippocratic author of the text On Ancient Medicine:

"We must, therefore, consider the causes (αίτια) of each [medical] condition to be those things which are such that, when they are present, the condition necessarily occurs, but when they change to another combination, it ceases."

The point here is that it was common in Greek thought to consider a cause as effective in "producing" (in some sense of the word) an effect – in this case a medical condition. Substituting "explanation" for "cause" misses that point; an explanation may describe how an effect is produced but it does not produce an effect.

That's my main reason for wanting to make some change.

I've also been reading through some new sources that I've found on the web. I've only had time to skim a comparatively new book Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought, by R. J. Hankinson which raises the issues of cause vs. explanation. He notes the relation between explanation and cause this way:

"Explanation standardly takes the form of stating the causes of something" (p. 3).

He has this interesting comment about Aristotle's four causes:

"Aristotle famously distinguishes four 'causes' (or causal factors in explanation), the matter, the form, the end, and the agent" (p. 159).

Two points, Hankinson clearly considers that causes are a standard part of explanation; secondly, he offers a way around the … cause / … explanation dilemma by using the simple nouns "matter", etc. to describe those causal factors in explanation. This suggests a simple way to resolve our editorial problem (although it will require some care to insure the syntax of the text is not damaged at the many places where changes are necessary). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you (I will wait to see what you propose) but keep in mind that Greek medical texts and much the classical Greek corpus was written after Aristotle, when this term had begun to become a technical one, disconnected from its everyday original use. It is one of the interesting points about Aristotle that there are many terms where this sort of thing happened. Anyway it is clear that in modern English the word (and concept) is not the same as the original everyday Greek, but now purely a technical term. One reason for being interested to point this out, for many authors, is that it raises the question of whether the technical term is something people accept too easily as a real "thing" just because of a tradition. Aristotle tended to use everyday words so he could start with every day experiences and build from there. Philosophical writing which skips all that and just assumes the tradition is correct, kind of of miss the point sometimes, and miss the difficulties and mysteries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Focusing on Aristotle's original intent certainly must be a central part of this discussion. I'd like to include your comments about his intent and method in the article, but would like a source to cite to avoid WP:OR; do you know of any good ones?

Speaking as a historian of science, we also have to consider the later history of the four causes in the Middle Ages and the Scientific Revolution.

As a practical step, I've set up a working version in my userspace so I can work out changes as time allows without messing up the existing text. Feel free to edit there but, since I plan to delete my working draft and its talk page when it's finished, I think we should keep any substantial discussions here so they stay with the article's history.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: OK, I've run through the draft and pretty well cleared up the explanation / cause controversy. I made three kinds of changes:

• Whenever it seemed fitting, I used the terms Matter, Form, Agent, or End to avoid the controversy.
• When "cause" seemed essential (including discussions of "Final 'cause'" , etc., I put "cause" in quotes (BTW, I noted a stylistic inconsistency in the article between double and single quotes, so I tried to change all single quotes to double quotes)
• Sometimes I used "explanation" where it seemed appropriate, but never in the sense of "Final explanation", etc.

Reading through the article I saw several other problems, especially in the discussion of final cause where there seems to be an attempt to relate Aristotle's idea to modern scientific thought, but I decided not to deal with those issues until this one is sorted out.

I'd welcome comments on the current working draft; if it's OK I'll drop it into the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've made the changes discussed above to the article. I hope they strike a balance between the use of "cause" and "explanation". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bolded parts through this article

The bolded parts through this article do not seem common to me. I'm not sure whether they're maybe holdovers from an earlier Wikipedia formatting style, or whether they're maybe following a current trend (2018 as of writing), but at any rate, it stands out, and I propose it should be considered to not format the article like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're right; per MOS:BOLD the excess bolding ought to be removed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Might be me who did that. No strong opinion. Sometimes (rarely) I use formatting on text if I think it is very hard to read.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Formal cause

I do not agree that formal cause can be summarized with what is today called "design", and particularly not as a sketched design as in the figure. Form in Aristotelianism is defined as a non-material concept. Any suggestions of how this can be (de-)clarified? Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose Refactor Matter->Material, Form->Formal, etc in section headings under Four Causes

The adverbial seems more appropriate to the task of describing "Cause", and is used elsewhere in the article. Unless there is a strong reason not to, I'll refactor the section headings under Aristotles Four Causes to be Material, etc rather than merely Matter. Efficient instead of Agent as a header. Final rather than end

Elective ICT

Cause relevant for it's purpose 122.52.92.105 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Material movement?

Hi, material is described as "The material cause of a change or movement. This is the aspect of the change or movement that is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things", which isn't very clear. If one shifts perspective from material being an agens to being a patiens, one might describe material as that which change or movement happens to, the recipient of (and later "storage" of the result of) change and movement. This seems proper, as the original text seems trapped in the ordinary EN usage of 'cause' as 'efficient cause', here resulting in trying to present material as somehow efficient when the efficient is a separate cause of its own. If no one objects, I'll suggest a rewrite. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)