CAUSE AND EFFECT IN BIOLOGY - KINDS OF CAUSES, PREDICTABILITY, AND TELEOLOGY ARE VIEWED BY A PRACTICING BIOLOGIST
CAUSE AND EFFECT IN BIOLOGY - KINDS OF CAUSES, PREDICTABILITY, AND TELEOLOGY ARE VIEWED BY A PRACTICING BIOLOGIST
复制标题
DOI：
10.1126/science.134.3489.1501
复制
发表时间：
1961-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
MAYR, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MAYR, E
生物学中的因果关系与经典力学中的因果关系大不相同。除了最简单的生物现象外，对所有现象的解释通常都由一系列原因组成。对于那些只有考虑到它们的进化史才能理解的生物现象，这一点尤其正确。每一组就像一对括号，其中包含了许多未分析的内容和许多可能永远无法完全分析的内容。鉴于大多数生物过程（除了纯粹的物理化学过程）可能有大量的多种途径，鉴于许多生物过程的随机性，特别是在分子水平上（以及其他原因），生物系统中的因果关系是不可预测的，或者充其量只是统计上的预测。在种质的DNA中存在着复杂的信息编码，这就允许了目的学的目的性。另一方面，进化研究没有发现任何证据证明进化路线的“目标追求”，正如那种目的论所假定的那样，它看到了自然界的“计划和设计”。生命宇宙的和谐，就其存在而言，是自然选择的后验产物。最后，生物学中的因果关系与经典力学的因果关系并没有真正的冲突。正如现代物理学所证明的那样，经典力学的因果关系只是因果关系的一个非常简单的特例。例如，可预测性并不是因果关系的必要组成部分。生物因果关系的复杂性并不能证明拥抱非科学的意识形态是合理的，比如生机论或终定论，但应该鼓励所有那些试图给因果关系概念一个更广泛的基础的人。
Causality in biology is a far cry from causality in classical mechanics. Explanations of all but the simplest biological phenomena usually consist of sets of causes. This is particularly true for those biological phenomena that can be understood only if their evolutionary history is also considered. Each set is like a pair of brackets which contains much that is unanalyzed and much that can presumably never be analyzed completely. In view of the high number of multiple pathways possible for most biological processes (except for the purely physicochemical ones) and in view of the randomness of many of the biological processes, particularly on the molecular level (as well as for other reasons), causality in biological systems is not predictive, or at best is only statistically predictive. The existence of complex codes of information in the DNA of the germ plasm permits teleonomic purposiveness. On the other hand, evolutionary research has found no evidence whatsoever for a "goal-seeking" of evolutionary lines, as postulated in that kind of teleology which sees "plan and design" in nature. The harmony of the living universe, so far as it exists, is an a posteriori product of natural selection. Finally, causality in biology is not in real conflict with the causality of classical mechanics. As modern physics has also demonstrated, the causality of classical mechanics is only a very simple, special case of causality. Predictability, for instance, is not a necessary component of causality. The complexities of biological causality do not justify embracing non-scientific ideologies, such as vitalism or finalism, but should encourage all those who have been trying to give a broader basis to the concept of causality.