Talk:Proximate and ultimate causation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

In ethology section

This distinction applies to all of biology, no? Richard001 (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In philosophy

Should we be more specific? I think causation is a matter of metaphysics, right? As far as I know most branches of philosophy don't get into the distinction between different sorts of causes. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Biology

Not sure if the proximate/ultimate distinction is all that clear in general biology. I know many textbooks describe proximate/ultimate - but it should be recognized as scientific convention.

In law and medicine

mention is needed of both of these. also insuranceToyokuni3 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts:

Cause and Effect in Biology Revisited: Is Mayr's Proximate-Ultimate Dichotomy Still Useful? Kevin N. Laland et al. Science 334, 1512 (2011); DOI: 10.1126/science.1210879 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandertje (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic article so far!

I rarely come across explanations of such high-level concepts that are so lucid and simple (and free of obscuring jargon). Is there a way to nominate this piece? Destrylevigriffith (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]