----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I would agree that Mayr is being cautious. And, your point about the "level" of
explanation may be a valid.
 
However I think what Mayr says is an indication that the _possibility_ that new
understandings of teleological phenomena are becoming available is worth considering
despite the cautions and qualifications.  And, there are a number of respected biologists
who are convinced that these new understandings amount to a fundamentally new basis for
thinking about biological phenomena-- among them Jack Monod. And, many of these
applications are taking place at a molecular-biological level.  Sort of like Arrow's
recommendation that economists ought to look deeper than a "micro" level for new ideas.
The control theory biology  is providing the "Life sciences"  not only a new conceptual
basis, but also a foundation for bio-engineering-- with William James "cash value of an
idea" as an obvious backdrop.
 
 
Nature Editorial 2OOO "Can Biological Phenomena Be Understood By Humans? Nature volume 4O3
27 January   p. 345.
 
"... the kind of modeling needed to understand the complex intracellular networks that
underlie most biological functions comes straight from engineering control theory."
p.345.
 
"As shown by two papers in last week's issue ( see Nature 4O3 335-338, 339-342; 2OOO), it
is becoming possible not just to analyze naturally occurring networks in this spirit, but
also to design and build biological networks to implement desired functions.  That,
surely, is a kind of
understanding worth having, and one that theoretical physicists can recognize as progress
of a sort."
 
My own interpretation would be that the applications of control theory in biology provide
sort of justification for the application of control theory in economics as a replacement
for the principle of maximization.
 
Bill Williams 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]