Abstract

Over the past few decades, philosophers of biology have debated the need for a revised evolutionary synthesis that could integrate the causal dynamics of singular organisms into mainstream biological theory. In this chapter I examine two synthesizing arguments (extension and accretion) by turning to a historical source that has recently caught the attention of philosophers on both sides of the debate: Immanuel Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment. I argue that accretionists and extenders both pick out one of two key components in Kant’s account of teleological judgment, which, according to Kant, must be held together. By emphasizing one part of Kant’s account of teleological judgment at the expense of the other, both sides overlook the practical nature of his critique. Kant does not simply identify the conditions that render it necessary to judge some products of nature teleologically, I suggest, but also demonstrates the need for second-order analysis to define various domains of inquiry that arise in response to the explanatory demands of nature. The shared turn to Kant indicates that synthesizing arguments can be evaluated against their capacity to accommodate ongoing negotiation between the plurality of research aims in practice. I conclude that a deflationary version of the extension argument is best suited to the task.