| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"N73r9l7ng1","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":479,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/preӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":643°Ӻ,"quote":"First, however, it is necessary to bring out the fact that the principle of causality is not as uniform as it might appear from the quoted statement by Helmholtz. Its lawlikeness springs from the trust that similar ‘causes’ will have similar ‘effects’;Ӷ4Ӻ by itself it does not specify that all causes and the operative relation that links them with effects must be of the same kind. Our topic, here, is teleology, a particular notion of causation that has been put into question since the rise of science. Considerations such as the following are characteristic of the modern attitude: \n\nWhen we ask “why?” concerning an event, we may mean either of two things. We may mean: “What purpose did this event serve?” or we may mean: “What earlier circumstances caused this event?” The answer to the former question is a teleological explanation, or an explanation by final causes; the answer to the latter question is a mechanistic explanation. I do not see how it could have been known in advance which of these two questions science ought to ask, or whether it ought to ask both. But experience has shown that the mechanistic question leads to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. (Russell, 1946, p. 86– 87)","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321096051066034122692":^°°,^"jQuery321096051066034122692":^°°,^"jQuery321096051066034122692":^°°,^"jQuery321096051066034122692":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1576066836614°
|
