| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"V58ajaysst","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/olӶ1Ӻ/liӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":134°Ӻ,"quote":"For epistemologists, then, it may be useful to look at how we come to have that kind of knowledge. From my point of view, Humberto Maturana has provided the most lucid analysis of the procedure that is usually called “the scientific method”.Ӷ1Ӻ Maturana divides the procedure into four steps: \n\nOBSERVATION. In order to count as “scientific”, an observation must be carried out under certain constraints, and the constraints must be made explicit (so that the observation can be repeated).\nObservations may then be related by an HYPOTHESIS, usually an inductive hypothesis that involves causal connections.\nBy deduction a PREDICTION is derived from the hypothesis, a prediction that concerns an event that has not yet been observed.\nThe scientist then sets out to observe the predicted event; again, the OBSERVATION must take place under certain explicit constraints.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°,^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°,^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°,^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°,^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°,^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°,^"jQuery32106540072489306352":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1561972526054°
|
