| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Xz0smcj82d","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":3054,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":3800°Ӻ,"quote":"The confusion concerning the conceptual structures that might be involved when we speak of ‘purpose’, ‘goal’, ‘final causes’, and ‘teleology’ has fueled more than one debate. A good example are the comments and rebuttals in the journal Philosophy of Science that followed upon the publication of the famous paper by Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow (1943) which is sometimes cited as the beginning of cybernetics. At the root of that debate was the contention that the explanation Wiener and his colleagues formulated in terms of purposive action was superfluous because the phenomena they cited could be adequately explained in terms of the traditional concept of ‘efficient cause’ customary in the mechanistic world view. (Taylor, 1950a, 1950b)","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321096051066034122692":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1576064720592°
|
