Difference between revisions of "Annotation:An Introduction to Radical Constructivism/P2rwrijst5"

From DigiVis
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{Prämisse}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism |LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbich...")
 
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
+
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
 
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
 
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
+
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
 
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
 
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
+
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
 
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
 
|AnnotationOf=An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationDate=2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ19Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
+
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{TextAnnotation}}
 
{{TextAnnotation}}
 
{{TextAnnotation}}
 
{{TextAnnotation}}
 
{{TextAnnotation}}
 
{{TextAnnotation}}

Latest revision as of 17:13, 23 April 2019

Annotation of An_Introduction_to_Radical_Constructivism
Annotation Comment
Last Modification Date 2019-03-07T13:36:18.647Z
Last Modification User User:Sarah Oberbichler
Annotation Metadata
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"P2rwrijst5","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ17Ӻ","endOffset":1408°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.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°,^"jQuery321028761460178685332":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551962178265°
Annotation of
Annotation Comment
Last Modification Date
Last Modification User
Annotation Metadata
Annotation of
Annotation Comment
Last Modification Date
Last Modification User
Annotation Metadata
Annotation of
Annotation Comment
Last Modification Date
Last Modification User
Annotation Metadata