| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Lm1b3wlzue","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ6Ӻ","startOffset":1133,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":2578°Ӻ,"quote":"In Darwin’s Theory an organism’s physical form and its way of behaving must fit\ninto the environment in which it has to live. You all know that adaptation in this\nDarwinian sense is not something that the organism itself can do. It is something\naccidental. Biological adaptation is not an activity of either organisms or species but a\nstate of affairs. Anything that has the possibility to survive in the given environment is\n“fit”. As the biologist Colin Pittendrigh said, it is a pity that Darwin himself\noccasionally slipped and talked of “the survival of the fittest”, which is misleading. In\nprinciple, to be “fit” means to be able to survive.5 For the organism it is an either/or\nmatter, not a matter of degree.\nThat relationship of fitting into a set of constraints is what we call the\nrelationship of “viability”. Organisms are viable if they manage to survive in spite of\nthe constraints their environment places on their living and reproducing. This\nrelationship, therefore, is not one of representation but one of fitting into given\ncircumstances.\nWhere knowledge is concerned, the circumstances are often purely logical ones.\nThey do not constitute a physical environment but a conceptual one. To be viable, a\nnew thought should fit into the existing scheme of conceptual structures in a way that\ndoes not cause contradictions. If there are contradictions, either the new thought or\nthe old structures are deemed to require changing.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321029429371412255082":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1562091982059°
|
