Difference between revisions of "Annotation:Text:Teleology and the Concepts of Causation/S4ajak9loi"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{TextAnnotation | {{TextAnnotation | ||
|AnnotationOf=Text:Teleology_and_the_Concepts_of_Causation | |AnnotationOf=Text:Teleology_and_the_Concepts_of_Causation | ||
| − | |LastModificationDate=2020-01-17T18:57: | + | |LastModificationDate=2020-01-17T18:57:25.597Z |
|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":"S4ajak9loi","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":236,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","endOffset":1596°Ӻ,"quote":"In the evolutionary domain, ‘that which works’ is simply that which survives. Everything that does not work, dies out. There is no ‘induction’ on the part of the organisms; only outside observers are tempted to describe the phylogenetic procedure as inductive, and if they do, it is a misleading metaphor. The same goes for those mechanisms in biological organisms, that act to maintain certain internal conditions in equilibrium. Walter Cannon (1932/1963) provided examples of such ‘homeostatic’ phenomena (e.g. control of the heartbeat, sugar level, etc.). These mechanisms are sometimes described as though they were ingenious inventions of the evolutionary process, but this is a metaphorical inversion. The Darwinian theory explains them as the result of fortuitous mutations that bestowed increased fitness on the organisms that happened to have them. \nIn the individual history of an organism, however, the situation is not quite so stark. With regard to most situations an organism gets itself into, there is a ‘twice’, and the organism can do something to avoid the burns of the first occasion. If the avoidance maneuver is successful, it will be repeated whenever a similar situation is met. Thus it is, indeed, an inductive procedure, because ‘what works’ is seen from the organism’s point of view and selected within the organism’s own experience.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°,^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1579283784439° | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"S4ajak9loi","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":236,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","endOffset":1596°Ӻ,"quote":"In the evolutionary domain, ‘that which works’ is simply that which survives. Everything that does not work, dies out. There is no ‘induction’ on the part of the organisms; only outside observers are tempted to describe the phylogenetic procedure as inductive, and if they do, it is a misleading metaphor. The same goes for those mechanisms in biological organisms, that act to maintain certain internal conditions in equilibrium. Walter Cannon (1932/1963) provided examples of such ‘homeostatic’ phenomena (e.g. control of the heartbeat, sugar level, etc.). These mechanisms are sometimes described as though they were ingenious inventions of the evolutionary process, but this is a metaphorical inversion. The Darwinian theory explains them as the result of fortuitous mutations that bestowed increased fitness on the organisms that happened to have them. \nIn the individual history of an organism, however, the situation is not quite so stark. With regard to most situations an organism gets itself into, there is a ‘twice’, and the organism can do something to avoid the burns of the first occasion. If the avoidance maneuver is successful, it will be repeated whenever a similar situation is met. Thus it is, indeed, an inductive procedure, because ‘what works’ is seen from the organism’s point of view and selected within the organism’s own experience.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°,^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1579283784439° | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{Thema | {{Thema | ||
|field_text_autocomplete=Anpassung | |field_text_autocomplete=Anpassung | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Thema | ||
| + | |field_text_autocomplete=Evolution | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:57, 17 January 2020
| Annotation of | Text:Teleology_and_the_Concepts_of_Causation |
|---|---|
| Annotation Comment | |
| Last Modification Date | 2020-01-17T18:57:25.597Z |
| Last Modification User | User:Sarah Oberbichler |
| Annotation Metadata | ^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"S4ajak9loi","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":236,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","endOffset":1596°Ӻ,"quote":"In the evolutionary domain, ‘that which works’ is simply that which survives. Everything that does not work, dies out. There is no ‘induction’ on the part of the organisms; only outside observers are tempted to describe the phylogenetic procedure as inductive, and if they do, it is a misleading metaphor. The same goes for those mechanisms in biological organisms, that act to maintain certain internal conditions in equilibrium. Walter Cannon (1932/1963) provided examples of such ‘homeostatic’ phenomena (e.g. control of the heartbeat, sugar level, etc.). These mechanisms are sometimes described as though they were ingenious inventions of the evolutionary process, but this is a metaphorical inversion. The Darwinian theory explains them as the result of fortuitous mutations that bestowed increased fitness on the organisms that happened to have them. \nIn the individual history of an organism, however, the situation is not quite so stark. With regard to most situations an organism gets itself into, there is a ‘twice’, and the organism can do something to avoid the burns of the first occasion. If the avoidance maneuver is successful, it will be repeated whenever a similar situation is met. Thus it is, indeed, an inductive procedure, because ‘what works’ is seen from the organism’s point of view and selected within the organism’s own experience.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°,^"jQuery32108604521753538622":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1579283784439°
|
| Thema | Erfahrung |
|---|
| Thema | Anpassung |
|---|
| Thema | Evolution |
|---|
