----------------- 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]