Sarah Oberbichler at 10:26, 20 September 2019

2019-09-20T10:26:29Z

Sarah Oberbichler: Created page with "{{Beispiel3}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Annotationen:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit |LastModificationDate=2019-09-20T12:26:13.014Z |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbi..."

2019-09-20T10:26:14Z

Created page with "{{Beispiel3}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Annotationen:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit |LastModificationDate=2019-09-20T12:26:13.014Z |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbi..."

New page

{{Beispiel3}}
{{TextAnnotation
|AnnotationOf=Annotationen:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit
|LastModificationDate=2019-09-20T12:26:13.014Z
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yabi7ix5fk","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ13Ӻ","startOffset":441,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ13Ӻ","endOffset":1421°Ӻ,"quote":"It is the same trick that the statistician performs quite openly: when something has recurred a sufficient number of times, it is considered “significant”—which is to say, it is considered probable enough to be taken as a “fact.” The good statistician, of course, does not forget that it was he or she who decided the level of recurrence beyond which things were to be considered “significant.” Like the good modern physicist, he does not argue that, just because the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can remember or have records, we have the right to assume that it must continue to do so in the future. With David Hume, they know that there is no conceivable logical reason why the future should resemble the past. But, for practical reasons, we tend to assume that it will. If we did not make that assumption, we could not draw any inferences at all from past experience, and our attempts at predicting and controlling future experience could not even get started.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028000069703916032":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Beispiel3","data_creacio":1568975172602°
}}

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{TextAnnotation
 |AnnotationOf=Annotationen:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit
-|LastModificationDate=2019-09-20T12:26:13.014Z
+|AnnotationComment=It is the same trick that the statistician performs quite openly: when something has recurred a sufficient number of times, it is considered “significant”—which is to say, it is considered probable enough to be taken as a “fact.” The good statistician, of course, does not forget that it was he or she who decided the level of recurrence beyond which things were to be considered “significant.” Like the good modern physicist, he does not argue that, just because the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can remember or have records, we have the right to assume that it must continue to do so in the future. With David Hume, they know that there is no conceivable logical reason why the future should resemble the past. But, for practical reasons, we tend to assume that it will. If we did not make that assumption, we could not draw any inferences at all from past experience, and our attempts at predicting and controlling future experience could not even get started.
 |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
-|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yabi7ix5fk","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ13Ӻ","startOffset":441,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ13Ӻ","endOffset":1421°Ӻ,"quote":"It is the same trick that the statistician performs quite openly: when something has recurred a sufficient number of times, it is considered “significant”—which is to say, it is considered probable enough to be taken as a “fact.” The good statistician, of course, does not forget that it was he or she who decided the level of recurrence beyond which things were to be considered “significant.” Like the good modern physicist, he does not argue that, just because the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can remember or have records, we have the right to assume that it must continue to do so in the future. With David Hume, they know that there is no conceivable logical reason why the future should resemble the past. But, for practical reasons, we tend to assume that it will. If we did not make that assumption, we could not draw any inferences at all from past experience, and our attempts at predicting and controlling future experience could not even get started.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028000069703916032":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Beispiel3","data_creacio":1568975172602°
+|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yabi7ix5fk","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ13Ӻ","startOffset":441,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ13Ӻ","endOffset":1421°Ӻ,"quote":"It is the same trick that the statistician performs quite openly: when something has recurred a sufficient number of times, it is considered “significant”—which is to say, it is considered probable enough to be taken as a “fact.” The good statistician, of course, does not forget that it was he or she who decided the level of recurrence beyond which things were to be considered “significant.” Like the good modern physicist, he does not argue that, just because the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can remember or have records, we have the right to assume that it must continue to do so in the future. With David Hume, they know that there is no conceivable logical reason why the future should resemble the past. But, for practical reasons, we tend to assume that it will. If we did not make that assumption, we could not draw any inferences at all from past experience, and our attempts at predicting and controlling future experience could not even get started.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028000069703916032":^°°Ӻ,"text":"It is the same trick that the statistician performs quite openly: when something has recurred a sufficient number of times, it is considered “significant”—which is to say, it is considered probable enough to be taken as a “fact.” The good statistician, of course, does not forget that it was he or she who decided the level of recurrence beyond which things were to be considered “significant.” Like the good modern physicist, he does not argue that, just because the sun has risen every morning for as long as we can remember or have records, we have the right to assume that it must continue to do so in the future. With David Hume, they know that there is no conceivable logical reason why the future should resemble the past. But, for practical reasons, we tend to assume that it will. If we did not make that assumption, we could not draw any inferences at all from past experience, and our attempts at predicting and controlling future experience could not even get started.","category":"Beispiel3","data_creacio":1568975172602°
 }}

Annotation:Annotationen:Knowledge as Environmental Fit/Yabi7ix5fk - Revision history

Sarah Oberbichler at 10:26, 20 September 2019

Sarah Oberbichler: Created page with "{{Beispiel3}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Annotationen:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit |LastModificationDate=2019-09-20T12:26:13.014Z |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbi..."