![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
This paper grew out of comments on Mark Bedau's ‘Can Biological Teleology be Naturalized?’ The Journal of Philosophy 88 (1991) pp. 647–655 delivered at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Meetings in December 1991. An early version of part of the paper was delivered to the Australasian Association of Philosophy, New Zealand Division in Dunedin and I thank John Collier, Paul Griffiths and Kim Sterelny for their comments on this occasion. Berent Enç, Bruce Hunter and several anonymous referees made helpful suggestions. My greatest debt is to Catherine Wilson who read and criticized successive drafts and with each iteration of the process forced me to greater and greater scepticism concerning the category of teleological explanation.
Notes
This paper grew out of comments on Mark Bedau's ‘Can Biological Teleology be Naturalized?’ The Journal of Philosophy 88 (1991) pp. 647–655 delivered at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Meetings in December 1991. An early version of part of the paper was delivered to the Australasian Association of Philosophy, New Zealand Division in Dunedin and I thank John Collier, Paul Griffiths and Kim Sterelny for their comments on this occasion. Berent Enç, Bruce Hunter and several anonymous referees made helpful suggestions. My greatest debt is to Catherine Wilson who read and criticized successive drafts and with each iteration of the process forced me to greater and greater scepticism concerning the category of teleological explanation.