Annotation:Annotationen:The Radical Constructivist View of Science/V70fublot4

From DigiVis
< Annotation:Annotationen:The Radical Constructivist View of Science
Revision as of 20:12, 27 January 2020 by Sarah Oberbichler (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Prämisse3}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Annotationen:The_Radical_Constructivist_View_of_Science |LastModificationDate=2020-01-27T20:12:28.329Z |LastModificationUser=User...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Annotation of Annotationen:The_Radical_Constructivist_View_of_Science
Annotation Comment
Last Modification Date 2020-01-27T20:12:28.329Z
Last Modification User User:Sarah Oberbichler
Annotation Metadata
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"V70fublot4","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":580,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":2090°Ӻ,"quote":"In contrast, the philosophically minded also use the word for items to which they ascribe ‘existence’, which is to say, they posit them as entities supposed to be independent of anyone’s experience. In this vein, some mathematicians speak of numbers as ‘mathematical objects’ as though they existed without anyone generating them by reflection on an activity such as counting.\nThe other two words, ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’, show a no less tricky ambiguity. On the one hand, they are intended to indicate the belief that the objects you have isolated in your experience are identical with those others have formed. From the constructivist point of view, this, too, is an illusion. It arises from the fact that we can recognize them and to a large extent agree on their description. None of this, however, requires an exact match of what we have individually abstracted from experience. Such commonality and communication shows no more than a relative compatibility of concepts in the situations in which we have had occasion to compare our individual uses of the particular words. Consequently, it would be preferable (and more accurate) if in all these cases we spoke of ‘intersubjective’ and ‘intersubjectivity’. This would preclude any fanciful flights into the realm of ontology. But in philosophical discourse, ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ are deliberately intended to imply direct knowledge of things as they are ‘in-themselves’, i.e. knowledge of items as they might be prior to being experienced.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321097576466401455742":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1580152348010°