| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Nyn8eahplp","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":1225°Ӻ,"quote":"Piaget came to this conclusion, not as a physicist, not as a psychologist, but as a biologist. From the theory of evolution, he imported the concept of adaptation into the study of cognition. \nTo grasp the full extent of this epistemological shift, one needs to be clear about what precisely ‘adaptation’ means and how it works. There is a wide-spread notion that adaptation is an activity carried out by living organisms when they are being pressed by the environment. The case of the mollusks may serve as an example. It is as though a growing mollusk could notice that the water around it flows quickly, and that the shell it is building had therefore better be flat, so that it offers less resistance. From an evolutionary point of view, such a notion is even worse than the Lamarckian heresy. \nWhat Piaget intended, was that the building of a mollusk’s shell is genetically determined as a function, but what this function produces, may depend on the specific constraints of the environment. The important thing is that the mollusk builds a shell that allows it to survive in spite of the constraints that hem it in. To put it generally, an organism must fit, i.e. be viable within the constraints of the environment.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321064489430463837642":^°°,^"jQuery321064489430463837642":^°°,^"jQuery321064489430463837642":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1568984621120°
|
