| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Vfnjaq1wld","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":6682,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":7296°Ӻ,"quote":"This at once brings us to one of the major discrepancies between the traditional and the radical constructivist theories of knowledge. Professional philosophers, as a rule, carefully exclude from their consideration anything that smacks of genesis or psychological development. They speak with disdain of the “genetic fallacy” and of “psychologism,” and thus, implicitly or explicitly, perpetuate the notion that the knowledge that is worth analyzing must be objective knowledge, and therefore independent of the particular knower’s mental operations and the circumstances under which he or she came to acquire it.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Innovationsdiskurs2","data_creacio":1568376020334°
|
