Annotation:Text:Why Constructivism Must be Radical/Byd95hhp8i

From DigiVis
< Annotation:Text:Why Constructivism Must be Radical
Revision as of 17:17, 20 September 2019 by Sarah Oberbichler (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Argumentation2}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Text:Why_Constructivism_Must_be_Radical |LastModificationDate=2019-09-20T18:17:30.874Z |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberb...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Annotation of Text:Why_Constructivism_Must_be_Radical
Annotation Comment
Last Modification Date 2019-09-20T18:17:30.874Z
Last Modification User User:Sarah Oberbichler
Annotation Metadata
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Byd95hhp8i","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":850°Ӻ,"quote":"It was, indeed, radical to break away from the traditional way of thinking according to which all human knowledge ought or can approach a more or less “true” representation of an independently existing, or ontological reality. In place of this notion of representation, radical constructivism introduces a new, more tangible relationship between knowledge and reality, which I have called a relationship of “viability.” Simply put, the notion of viability means that an action, operation, conceptual structure, or even a theory, is considered “viable” as long as it is useful in accomplishing a task or in achieving a goal that one has set for oneself. Thus, instead of claiming that knowledge is capable of representing a world outside of our experience, we would say, as did the pragmatists, that knowledge is a tool within the realm of experience.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210413197432160228862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1568996250507°
Thema Realität
Thema Viabilität
Thema Vorstellung