The Impact of Direct Challenges to Student Endorsement of Teleological Reasoning on Understanding and Acceptance of Natural Selection

Background: Teleological reasoning is a cognitive bias purported to disrupt student ability to understand natural selection. Few studies have described pedagogical efforts to decrease student endorsement of teleological reasoning and measure the effects of this attenuation on the understanding and acceptance of evolution. This study examined the influence of explicit instructional activities directly challenging student endorsement of teleological explanations for evolutionary adaptations on their learning of natural selection over a semester-long undergraduate course in evolutionary medicine. In a convergent mixed-methods design this study combined pre- and post-semester survey data (N = 83) on understanding natural selection, student endorsement of teleological reasoning, and acceptance of evolution, with thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their understanding and acceptance of natural selection and teleological reasoning.Results: Student endorsement of teleological reasoning decreased and understanding and acceptance of natural selection increased during a course on human evolution with teleological intervention (p£0.0001), compared to a control course. Endorsement of teleological reasoning was predictive of understanding of natural selection prior to the semester. Thematic analysis revealed that students were largely unaware of the concept of teleological reasoning prior to the course, but perceived attenuation of their own teleological reasoning by the end of the semester. Conclusions: Students are unaware of their high levels of endorsement of teleological reasoning upon entrance into the undergraduate human evolution course, which is consequential because teleological reasoning is a predicter of natural selection understanding. We developed class activities to directly challenge student endorsement of unwarranted design teleological reasoning. As a result, students had decreased unwarranted teleological reasoning and increased acceptance and understanding of natural selection over the course of the semester. The data presented show that students are receptive to explicit instructional challenges to their teleological reasoning and that attenuation of this bias is associated with gains in natural selection understanding and acceptance.

Reasons Things Happen for a Reason: An Integrative Theory of Teleology

Humans default to functions and purposes when asked to explain the existence of mysterious phenomena. Our penchant for teleological reasoning is associated with good outcomes, such as finding meaning in misfortune, but also with bad outcomes, such as dangerous conspiracy theories and misunderstood scientific ideas, both of which pose important social and health problems. Psychological research into the teleological default has long alluded to Daniel Dennett’s intentional-systems theory but has not fully engaged with the three intellectual stances at its core (intentional, design, physical). This article distinguishes the intentional stance from the design stance, which untangles some of the present knots in theories of teleology, accounts for diverse forms of teleology, and enhances predictions of when teleological reasoning is more likely to occur. This article examines the evidence for a teleological default considering Dennett’s intentional-systems theory, proposes a process model, and clarifies current theoretical debates. It argues that people rationally and often thoughtfully use teleological reasoning in relation to both cognitive and social psychological factors. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

Reasons Things Happen for a Reason: An Integrative Theory of Teleology

Humans default to functions and purposes when asked to explain the existence ofmysterious phenomena. Our penchant for teleological reasoning is associated with good outcomes such as finding meaning in misfortune, but also with bad outcomes such as dangerous conspiracy theories and misunderstood scientific ideas, both of which pose important social and health problems. Psychological research into the teleological default has long alluded to Daniel Dennett's intentional systems theory but has not fully engaged with the three intellectual stances at its core (intentional, design, physical). This article distinguishes the intentional stance from the design stance, which untangles some of the present knots in theories of teleology, accounts for diverse forms of teleology, and enhances predictions of when teleological reasoning is more likely to occur. This article examines the evidence for a teleological default considering Dennett’s intentional systems theory, proposes a process model, and clarifies current theoretical debates. It argues that people rationally and often thoughtfully use teleological reasoning in relation to both cognitive and social psychological factors. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

An Ethical Framework for Communicating Public Health Crises: A Case Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic

These Identifying the traditional principle of medical ethics of autonomy as a major factor that hinders epidemiological investigation and the understanding of a novel virus, this study adopts an ethical framework, consisting of the axes of ethical devotions (local, national, continental, and global) and ethical reasoning approaches (deontological and teleological), to analyze the approaches of communicating global public health crises like the COVID pandemic. The argument is made to endorse a global devotion with teleological reasoning in a large-scale public health crisis that needs global collaboration to cope with.

Teleology beyond explanation: What factors influence teleology judgments?

What do we mean when we say something is for a given purpose? Teleology (i.e., something’s purpose) is often associated with teleological explanation (i.e., an explanation referring to that purpose). For instance, a knife may be for cutting things precisely because its existence can be explained by that purpose. But do people ascribe a telos to an object only if they think that object has a teleological explanation? Experiment 1 examined cases where an object was designed for one purpose but is now widely used for a different purpose, and found that teleology judgments and teleological explanation judgments are dissociable: Only an artifact’s original purpose could serve as an explanation, but its new purpose could also be its telos. Experiments 2-3 identified three factors that influence teleology judgments other than intentional design: present use (i.e., how a community is currently using the artifact), collective recognition (i.e., how a community together characterizes the artifact) and success at a function (i.e., how well the artifact can perform its purpose). Finally, Experiment 4 identified one factor that (perhaps unexpectedly) did not affect teleology judgments. In contrast to its role in teleological explanation, structure- function fit did not impact teleology judgments. Implications for work on object teleology and interpretations of teleological reasoning more generally are discussed.

Not Dead Yet

It is often maintained that teleology was undermined in the early modern era by the scientific revolution. Hoping to correct this misperception, this essay looks at three areas in which teleology was upheld and developed by three pioneers of early modern science. The first main section argues that teleological reasoning is woven into the very fabric of William Harvey’s revolutionary work in biology. The second main section takes up Robert Boyle’s explicit and systematic defense of teleology and especially his effort to reconcile the methods and views of the new science with a deep-seated commitment to divine teleology. Finally, the last main section explores Pierre Maupertuis’s bold attempt to find a place for teleology in the heart of modern, mathematical physics.

Teaching Evolutionary Principles in Health Promotion: A Pilot Study

Introduction. Teaching evolutionary principles in a health promotion course may increase the relevance of evolutionary theory to students, enrich biological understanding of disease, and provide a unique perspective on how evolution can affect human health and disease. This pilot study examined the extent to which evolution instruction in an undergraduate college-level health promotion course affects learning the fundamental concepts of evolution by natural selection, student misconceptions of evolution, and student acceptance of evolution, compared with evolution instruction in a biology course. Methods. Pre–post course surveys measured student understanding of evolution measured with the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection, student misconception related to endorsement of teleological reasoning, and student level of acceptance of evolution, along with several demographic variables. Ninety-four ( n = 94) undergraduate student participants were enrolled in one of three courses: an Evolution-Health course, an Evolution-Biology course, and a Human Physiology course. Results. Students significantly improved their Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection scores in both Evolution-Health ( p = .0005) and Evolution-Biology ( p = .015). Student misconceptions of evolution significantly decreased ( p = .0034), and acceptance of human evolution increased ( p = .031) in the Evolution-Health course only. Change in natural selection understanding over the course of the semester was modestly negatively correlated with change in teleological reasoning ( r = −.21, p = 0.047), such that students with larger decreases in teleological reasoning had greater learning gains in natural selection understanding. Conclusions. This study provides preliminary evidence that evolutionary instruction in a college-level health promotion context improves understanding of fundamental evolutionary concepts, decreases student misconceptions related to teleological reasoning, and improves acceptance of human evolution.

Spontaneous categorization of tools based on observation in children and chimpanzees

The acquisition of the concept of ‘tool’ remains intriguing from both developmental and comparative perspectives. Our current model of tool use development in children is based on humans’ supposedly unique ability to adopt a teleological stance: the understanding of a demonstrator’s goal-based intentions when using a tool. It is however unclear how children and chimpanzees, our closest relatives, combine their knowledge of different objects whose function is to act on other parts of the environment, and assign them to a single category of ‘tools’. Here, we used a function-based approach to address this question. We exposed 7 to 11-year-old children and adult chimpanzees to a Matching-to-Function (MTF) task to explore whether they would sort tools and non-tools separately after demonstration of their function by an experimenter. MTF is a variant of Matching-to-Sample where the sample and the target are from the same category/kind rather than identical. Around 40% of children paired objects according to their function in the MTF task, with only one child younger than 8 years doing so. Moreover, when verbally questioned, these children offered a function-based answer to explain their choices. One of six chimpanzees also successfully paired objects according to function. Children and at least one chimpanzee can thus spontaneously sort tools into functional categories based on observing a demonstrator. The success of a single chimpanzee in our task suggests that teleological reasoning might already have been present in our last common ancestor but also shows that human children more readily conceptualize tools in a spontaneous fashion.

Teleological pitfalls in reading evolutionary trees and ways to avoid them

Despite evolution being the central idea in modern biology, considerable variation exists in its acceptance around the globe, and reports of anti-evolutionist and creationist movements are widespread. Educators need to re-evaluate the approaches used for teaching students about evolution in order to facilitate its understanding and acceptance. A major hurdle in understanding the concepts of evolution is that humans tend to view the world in a teleological way. Learners create obstacles to understanding the concepts of evolution by ascribing purpose or intent-driven actions to animals, processes, or inanimate objects. An indispensable learning tool in the field of evolution is the evolutionary tree, as it is a direct representation of evolutionary hypotheses. The ability to read and understand this form of representation is prerequisite to fully understanding the concepts of evolution. In this work, we present issues faced when attempting to teach students to read evolutionary trees as well as troublesome diagrammatic properties that may foster teleological thinking. Further, we present teaching practices and methods that may be used to avoid the above challenges (from diagrammatic and instructional perspectives). With this work, we aim to raise awareness among educators about the different potential teleological pitfalls in the field of teaching how to read evolutionary trees, and to present different approaches for minimizing teleological reasoning and thinking in evolution education.