Appendix II

DARWIN’S PREDICTA MOTH AS A PURE, A PRIORI ACCESSIBLE POSSIBILITY

Darwinism appears to be implicitly or explicitly actualist: After all, the evolutional-biological possibilities have been determined or selected along the course of natural history consisting only of actualities and actual circumstances. If such is the case, if Darwinism is inescapably and entirely actualist, no evolutional-biological possibilities could have been known a priori; like any natural historical facts, they must be a posteriori cognizable. They must be subject to induction, actual probabilities, or abduction. Any of the evolutional-biological possibilities are supposed to be post-factum, none of which could exist prior to any actualization or independently of it. Following Chapter Two above, I consider Darwin’s Predicta Moth as a counterexample to the alleged Darwinian actualism. One such typical example is sufficient to point out the possibility of a Darwinian possibilism. In the theory of evolution, a kind of a priori dependence, in terms of adaptation, function, or systematization consisting of the relationality of taxonomical and individual evolutional-biological possibilities, has led or conducted the relevant scientific observations and discoveries from Darwin on. Darwin’s counterfactual illustration in the following clause reveals an a priori dependence:

If such great moths were to become extinct in Madagascar, assuredly the Angraecum would become extinct. On the other hand, as the nectar, at least in the lower part of the nectary, is stored safe from the depredation of other insects, the extinction of the Angraecum would probably be a serious loss to these moths. (Darwin, 1984 [1877], p. 165)

These counterfactual implications directly refer to pure possibilities and their relations, not directly to actualities. They refer to a counterfactual situation, not to the actual one. Suppose that no actual Angraecum existed in Madagascar, suppose that this orchid were simply a pure possibility, a purely possible predicted orchid, which had such and such nectary of such and such length, and suppose that the Predicta Moth were known to us till today only as a pure possibility. In such a case, too, the relationship and dependence of these pure possibilities would be identical to what Darwin writes in this quotation. The interdependence under discussion is of a modal nature, whose conceptual frame consists of possibility, necessity, and existence. If no actual Angraecum 124 THE PRIVACY OF THE PSYCHICAL was known to exist in Madagascar at Darwin’s time, whereas the Xanthopan morgani would have been known at that time as a fact to the great surprise of the researchers, the dependence of the pure possibility of the orchid and that of the moth has been no less necessary and no less a priori accessible. The necessary dependence under discussion is de re, not de dicto. “Assuredly” and “probably” in the clause pertain simply to a manner of speaking, and they do not designate a literal epistemological distinction, for Darwin was absolutely sure that “in Madagascar Angraecum sesquipedale must depend on some gigantic moth” (Darwin, 1984 [1877], p. 282) and about the necessary connection between the fertilization and existence of that orchid and the existence of the Predicta Moth and vice versa. This necessary connection is a priori cognizable, and the truth about it is certain to the extent that Darwin’s theory is concerned. The necessity reflects the relations within the theory, whose possibilities and their necessary relations (in general, relationality) have been universally actualized, and Madagascar obviously is not an exception. Darwin’s predictions did not fail, since the pure possibilities and the necessary relations according to his theory have been actualized. Owing to this actualization alone, these pure possibilities and their relationality are facts, subject to observation and experience. Such an analysis of the clause is clearly possibilist. Unlike other orchidaceous plants, the Angraecum sesquipedale was not observed in Darwin’s time to be visited by any moth that could fertilize it. Thus, no evidence whatsoever existed to demonstrate that it was fertilized by any moth. This is enough to show that, unlike in the case of the interdependence of some other insects and plants (orchidaceous or otherwise), Darwin’s conviction about the existence of the Predicta Moth was established quite differently from the conclusions concerning the interdependence of other plants and insects. In the case of the Predicta Moth, on the grounds of compelling theoretical reasons, Darwin knew a priori that such a moth must exist for natural selection to be possible. This should bring to our attention that the a priori elements of Darwinism are wider and less limited than what we might expect of them. As exempt from any spatiotemporal and causal conditions, pure possibilities have no history and they do not serve as links in the causal chain subject to natural history and natural selection. Biological pure possibilities are actualized or actualizable in the course of natural history. They constitute an a priori range of possibilities that are open to actualization in the course of that history. Undoubtedly, natural history and natural selection determine actual possibilities for evolution, and these possibilities are not pure. By means of observation and experience scientists detect these actual possibilities and record them. Such was not the case of Darwin’s Predicta Moth at his time. As he and the entomologists of his time did not know at all about it as an