Skip to main content
Log in

Causes, proximate and ultimate

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within evolutionary biology a distinction is frequently made between proximate and ultimate causes. One apparently plausible interpretation of this dichotomy is that proximate causes concern processes occurring during the life of an organism while ultimate causes refer to those processes (particularly natural selection) that shaped its genome. But “ultimate causes” are not sought through historical investigations of an organisms lineage. Rather, explanations referring to ultimate causes typically emerge from functional analyses. But these functional analyses do not identify causes of any kind, much less ultimate ones. So-called “ultimate explanations” are not about causes in any sense resembling those of proximate explanations. The attitude, implicit in the term “ultimate cause”, that these functional analyses are somehow superordinate to those involving “proximate causes” is unfounded. “Ultimate causes” are neither ultimate nor causes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achinstein, P.: 1983,The Nature of Explanation, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D.: 1975, ‘The Search for a General Theory of Behavior’,Behavior Science 20, 77–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D.: 1979,Darwinism and Human Affairs, University of Washington Press, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D.: 1987,The Biology of Moral Systems, Aldine De Gruyter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J.: 1970, ‘Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology’,Philosophy of Science 37, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J. R.: 1938, ‘The Evolution of Breeding Seasons’, in G. R. de Beer (ed.),Evolution: Essays on Aspects of Evolutionary Biology, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.: 1980, ‘Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology’,Philosophy of Science 47 532–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W.: 1989, ‘Functional Analyses and their Justification’,Biology and Philosophy 4, 159–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner, M.: 1959,The Biological Way of Thought, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner, M.: 1969, ‘Function and Teleology’,Journal of the History of Biology 2, 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C.: 1976, ‘Wright on Functions’,Philosophical Review 85, 70–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradie, M. and F. D. Miller, Jr.: ‘Teleology and Natural Necessity in Aristotle’,History of Philosophy Quarterly 1, 133–146.

  • Brooks, D. R. and Wiley, E. O.: 1986,Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canfield, J.: 1964, ‘Teleological Explanations in Biology’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14, 285–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov, E. L.: 1982,The Theory of Sex Allocation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R.: 1975, ‘Functional Analysis’,Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A.: 1986,Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R.: 1986, ‘Necessitarianism and Teleology in Aristotle's Biology’,Biology and Philosophy 1, 355–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. C.: 1982, ‘Development and Evolution’,Journal of Theoretical Biology 97, 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. C.: 1983, ‘A Relational or Field Theory of Reproduction and Its Evolutionary Consequences’, in M.-W. Ho and P. T. Saunders (eds.),Beyond Neo-Darwinism, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. C.: 1984, ‘Changing from an Evolutionary to a Generative Paradigm in Biology’, in J. W. Pollard (ed.),Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future, John Wiley and Sons. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G.: 1959, ‘The Logic of Functional Analyses’, in L. Gross (ed.),Symposium on Sociological Theory, Harper and Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G.: 1965,Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P.: 1948, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’,Philosophy of Science 15 135–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan, B. L.: 1989, ‘Functional Explanations in Sociobiology’,Biology and Philosophy 4 131–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, H.: 1965. ‘Functional Explanation in Biology’,Philosophy of Science 32, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K.: 1966,On Aggression, Harcourt Brace Javonovich, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1961, ‘Cause and Effect in Biology’,Science 134, 1501–1506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1974, ‘Teleological and Teleonomic, a New Analysis’,Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14, 91–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1982,The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E.: 1961,Structure of Science, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeke, H. V. S., Herz, M. J. and Gallagher, J.: 1971, ‘Changes in Aggressive Interactions in Adjacently Territorial Convict Cichlids (Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum): A Study of Habituation’,Behaviour 40, 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, M.: 1989, ‘Covering-Laws and Functions’,Biology and Philosophy 4, 185–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A.: 1985,The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. E.: 1971, ‘Function Statements in Biology’,Philosophy of Science 38, 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1984,The Nature of Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorabji, R. R. K.: 1964. ‘Functions’,Philosophical Quarterly 14, 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F.: 1972, ‘The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories’, in F. Suppe (ed.),The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N.: 1963, ‘On Aims and Methods of Ethology”,Zeitschrift für Tierpsychology 20, 410–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1972, ‘A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science’, in R. Colodny (ed.),Paradigms and Paradoxes, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D. B. and Larson, A.: 1987, ‘Multidimensional Analysis of an Evolving Lineage”,Science 238, 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G. C.: 1983, ‘The Relations of Natural Forms’, in M. -W. Ho and P. T. Saunders (eds.),Beyond Neo-Darwinism, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G. and Goodwin, B. C.: 1982, ‘The Origin of Species: A Structuralist Approach’,Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5, 15–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G. and Goodwin, B. C.: 1984, ‘A Structuralist Approach to Morphology’,Rivista di Biologia 77, 503–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicken, J.: 1987,Evolution, Information, and Thermodynamics: Extending the Darwinian Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C.: 1966,Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O.: 1975,Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L.: 1973, ‘Functions’,Philosophical Review 85, 70–86.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Francis, R.C. Causes, proximate and ultimate. Biol Philos 5, 401–415 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207379

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207379

Key words

Navigation