Annotation:An Introduction to Radical Constructivism/Syb25gtvgg - Revision history

Admin at 14:34, 23 April 2019

2019-04-23T14:34:42Z

Sarah Oberbichler at 15:34, 7 March 2019

2019-03-07T15:34:35Z

Sarah Oberbichler: Created page with "{{Argument |field_radiobutton=pro }} {{Thema |field_text_autocomplete=Erfahrung }} {{Thema |field_text_autocomplete=Realität }} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=An_Introduction..."

2019-03-07T12:38:17Z

Created page with "{{Argument |field_radiobutton=pro }} {{Thema |field_text_autocomplete=Erfahrung }} {{Thema |field_text_autocomplete=Realität }} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=An_Introduction..."

New page

{{Argument
|field_radiobutton=pro
}}
{{Thema
|field_text_autocomplete=Erfahrung
}}
{{Thema
|field_text_autocomplete=Realität
}}
{{TextAnnotation
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
|AnnotationComment=der einzige Aspekt der "realen" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt.
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:38:01.318Z
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Syb25gtvgg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1517°Ӻ,"quote":"These considerations fit the basic problem of the theory of knowledge equally well. Quite generally, our knowledge is useful, relevant, viable, or however we want to call the positive end of the scale of evaluation, if it stands up to experience and enables us to make predictions and to bring about or avoid, as the case may be, certain phenomena (i.e., appearances, events, experiences). If knowledge does not serve that purpose, it becomes questionable, unreliable, useless, and is eventually devaluated as superstition. That is to say, from the pragmatic point of view, we consider ideas, theories, and “laws of nature” as structures which are constantly exposed to our experiential world (from which we derived them), and they either hold up or they do not. Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, therefore, proves no more and no less than just that – namely, given the circumstances we have experienced (and determined by experiencing them), it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the “objective” world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world. It tells us nothing – and cannot tell us anything – about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience. The only aspect of that “real” world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints;","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"der einzige Aspekt der \"realen\" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt. ","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1551962281000°
}}

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 |LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T16:34:33.884Z
 |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
-|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Syb25gtvgg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1517°Ӻ,"quote":"These considerations fit the basic problem of the theory of knowledge equally well. Quite generally, our knowledge is useful, relevant, viable, or however we want to call the positive end of the scale of evaluation, if it stands up to experience and enables us to make predictions and to bring about or avoid, as the case may be, certain phenomena (i.e., appearances, events, experiences). If knowledge does not serve that purpose, it becomes questionable, unreliable, useless, and is eventually devaluated as superstition. That is to say, from the pragmatic point of view, we consider ideas, theories, and “laws of nature” as structures which are constantly exposed to our experiential world (from which we derived them), and they either hold up or they do not. Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, therefore, proves no more and no less than just that – namely, given the circumstances we have experienced (and determined by experiencing them), it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the “objective” world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world. It tells us nothing – and cannot tell us anything – about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience. The only aspect of that “real” world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints;","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Der einzige Aspekt der \"realen\" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt. ","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1551962281000°
+|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Syb25gtvgg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1517°Ӻ,"quote":"These considerations fit the basic problem of the theory of knowledge equally well. Quite generally, our knowledge is useful, relevant, viable, or however we want to call the positive end of the scale of evaluation, if it stands up to experience and enables us to make predictions and to bring about or avoid, as the case may be, certain phenomena (i.e., appearances, events, experiences). If knowledge does not serve that purpose, it becomes questionable, unreliable, useless, and is eventually devaluated as superstition. That is to say, from the pragmatic point of view, we consider ideas, theories, and “laws of nature” as structures which are constantly exposed to our experiential world (from which we derived them), and they either hold up or they do not. Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, therefore, proves no more and no less than just that – namely, given the circumstances we have experienced (and determined by experiencing them), it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the “objective” world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world. It tells us nothing – and cannot tell us anything – about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience. The only aspect of that “real” world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints;","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Der einzige Aspekt der \"realen\" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt. ","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1551962281000°
 }}

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{TextAnnotation
 |AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
-|AnnotationComment=der einzige Aspekt der "realen" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt.
+|AnnotationComment=Der einzige Aspekt der "realen" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt.
-|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:38:01.318Z
+|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T16:34:33.884Z
 |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
-|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Syb25gtvgg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1517°Ӻ,"quote":"These considerations fit the basic problem of the theory of knowledge equally well. Quite generally, our knowledge is useful, relevant, viable, or however we want to call the positive end of the scale of evaluation, if it stands up to experience and enables us to make predictions and to bring about or avoid, as the case may be, certain phenomena (i.e., appearances, events, experiences). If knowledge does not serve that purpose, it becomes questionable, unreliable, useless, and is eventually devaluated as superstition. That is to say, from the pragmatic point of view, we consider ideas, theories, and “laws of nature” as structures which are constantly exposed to our experiential world (from which we derived them), and they either hold up or they do not. Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, therefore, proves no more and no less than just that – namely, given the circumstances we have experienced (and determined by experiencing them), it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the “objective” world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world. It tells us nothing – and cannot tell us anything – about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience. The only aspect of that “real” world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints;","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"der einzige Aspekt der \"realen\" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt. ","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1551962281000°
+|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Syb25gtvgg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1517°Ӻ,"quote":"These considerations fit the basic problem of the theory of knowledge equally well. Quite generally, our knowledge is useful, relevant, viable, or however we want to call the positive end of the scale of evaluation, if it stands up to experience and enables us to make predictions and to bring about or avoid, as the case may be, certain phenomena (i.e., appearances, events, experiences). If knowledge does not serve that purpose, it becomes questionable, unreliable, useless, and is eventually devaluated as superstition. That is to say, from the pragmatic point of view, we consider ideas, theories, and “laws of nature” as structures which are constantly exposed to our experiential world (from which we derived them), and they either hold up or they do not. Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, therefore, proves no more and no less than just that – namely, given the circumstances we have experienced (and determined by experiencing them), it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the “objective” world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world. It tells us nothing – and cannot tell us anything – about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience. The only aspect of that “real” world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints;","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Der einzige Aspekt der \"realen\" Welt, der tatsächlich in den Bereich der Erfahrung eintritt, sind die Einschränkungen dieser Welt. ","category":"Argument","data_creacio":1551962281000°
 }}