Difference between revisions of "Walk:Viabilitaet"
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
|stationId=6 | |stationId=6 | ||
|stationType=normal | |stationType=normal | ||
| − | |stationHeader= | + | |stationHeader=Und dann ist es doch falsch? |
|stationText=Compatibility does not imply identity, it merely implies viability in the given circumstances. That is why, after having used a word in a particular way for fifty or more years, we may discover that it is not quite the way others are using it – it is just that the circumstances in which we have so far used the word happened to be such that they did not bring out any differences. | |stationText=Compatibility does not imply identity, it merely implies viability in the given circumstances. That is why, after having used a word in a particular way for fifty or more years, we may discover that it is not quite the way others are using it – it is just that the circumstances in which we have so far used the word happened to be such that they did not bring out any differences. | ||
|stationDocumentSourceTitle=Source: Why I Consider Myself a Cybernetician | |stationDocumentSourceTitle=Source: Why I Consider Myself a Cybernetician | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
|stationVideoURL= | |stationVideoURL= | ||
|stationImageURL= | |stationImageURL= | ||
| − | |stationConclusion= | + | |stationConclusion=Das bedeutet aber nicht, dass wir das Wort immer falsch verstanden und falsch verwendet haben. Bis zu diesem Moment hat es ja "funktioniert" und wir haben die Kommunikationssituationen, in denen wir es gebraucht haben bewältigen können. Unser Verständnis des Wortes war also viabel und muss, um weiterhin viabel zu sein angepasst werden. |
}} | }} | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
|stationId=7 | |stationId=7 | ||
|stationType=normal | |stationType=normal | ||
| − | |stationHeader= | + | |stationHeader=Viabilität als neuer Blickwinkel |
|stationText=It was, indeed, radical to break away from the traditional way of thinking according to which all human knowledge ought or can approach a more or less “true” representation of an independently existing, or ontological reality. In place of this notion of representation, radical constructivism introduces a new, more tangible relationship between knowledge and reality, which I have called a relationship of “viability.” Simply put, the notion of viability means that an action, operation, conceptual structure, or even a theory, is considered “viable” as long as it is useful in accomplishing a task or in achieving a goal that one has set for oneself. Thus, instead of claiming that knowledge is capable of representing a world outside of our experience, we would say, as did the pragmatists, that knowledge is a tool within the realm of experience. | |stationText=It was, indeed, radical to break away from the traditional way of thinking according to which all human knowledge ought or can approach a more or less “true” representation of an independently existing, or ontological reality. In place of this notion of representation, radical constructivism introduces a new, more tangible relationship between knowledge and reality, which I have called a relationship of “viability.” Simply put, the notion of viability means that an action, operation, conceptual structure, or even a theory, is considered “viable” as long as it is useful in accomplishing a task or in achieving a goal that one has set for oneself. Thus, instead of claiming that knowledge is capable of representing a world outside of our experience, we would say, as did the pragmatists, that knowledge is a tool within the realm of experience. | ||
|stationDocumentSourceTitle=Source: Why Constructivism Must be Radical | |stationDocumentSourceTitle=Source: Why Constructivism Must be Radical | ||
