Teleology beyond explanation

Abstract

People often think of objects teleologically. For instance, we might understand a hammer in terms of its purpose of driving in nails. But how should we understand teleological thinking in the first place? This paper separates mere teleology (simply ascribing a telos) and teleological explanation (thinking something is explained by its telos) by examining cases where an object was designed for one purpose but is now widely used for a different purpose. Across four experiments, we show that teleology judgments and teleological explanation judgments are dissociable, and identify three factors that influenced teleology judgments (and one that did not).

Understanding “Why:” How Implicit Questions Shape Explanation Preferences

“…Our proposal is simple: Adults understand ambiguous ‘why’ questions as one of two possible implied questions; preferences for teleological answers are primarily explained by an inference about an implied ‘purpose’ question. Thus, a teleological answer can be satisfying regardless of whether it provides a causal account, insofar as it responds to a question that was not seeking such an account and does not require such an account in a satisfactory answer (see also Joo et al., 2021). In this case, a teleological answer is an appropriate answer to the inferred ‘purpose’ question—indeed, the only appropriate answer to such a question.…”

“…For instance, learning that an animal's tail is good for keeping its balance may help place the tail in the context of the whole animal, and learning that a tree serves the function of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere may help illustrate a wider ecosystem or its relationship to humans (see ojalehto, Waxman, & Medlin, 2013). In other words, regardless of its ability to explain , teleology may provide information about the relationship between different objects and some relevant communities (see also Joo et al., 2021; Scheele, 2006; Siegel & Callanan, 2007). Second, teleological explanations may also help individuals make predictions about unfamiliar entities.…”

“…Stimuli : Each item consisted of a vignette about an artifact that had been designed for one purpose but was now being used for a different purpose. These items were adapted from existing work (Joo, Yousif, & Knobe, 2021). Total materials consisted of four unique artifacts (straws/wind chimes, blankets/towels, ice cube trays/organizers, and washboards/percussion instruments).…”

From Artifacts to Human Lives: Investigating the Domain-Generality of Judgments about Purposes

“…Prior research has investigated how people apply the concept of purpose across a wide range of different domains. Some studies have focused on how people attribute purposes to products of human creation-examining judgments about the purposes of artifacts, like hammers or door knobs (Chaigneau et al, 2004;Defeyter et al, 2009;German & Johnson, 2002;Joo et al, 2021;Matan & Carey, 2001;Siegel & Callanan, 2007), as well as non-physical products of human creation, such as laws (Almeida et al, 2022), social groups, and institutions, like bands or universities Rose et al, 2020).…”

“…Prior research on the cognitive processes underlying purpose attributions-or "teleological reasoning," as it is sometimes called-has often focused on the criteria people use when thinking about ordinary physical objects (Chaigneau et al, 2008;Joo et al, 2021;Siegel & Callanan, 2007). This research has explored the ways in which judgments about the purposes of an artifact can be influenced by information about what the artifact was originally designed for, what it is being used for now, what it is effective at accomplishing, and so forth.…”