Editing Annotation:Text:Knowledge as Environmental Fit/Ty2oeyo7cj

{{TextAnnotation

{{TextAnnotation

|AnnotationOf=Text:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit

|AnnotationOf=Text:Knowledge_as_Environmental_Fit

|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":"Ty2oeyo7cj","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":2888,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":4673°Ӻ,"quote":"The second question to be answered concerns the cognizing activity itself, how it produces what we call “knowledge” and what relation obtains between that knowledge and the black box of ontic reality. For though we relinquish the traditional requirement that knowledge must depict, correspond to, or represent the real world, we must nevertheless (if we want to avoid the absurdity of solipsism) establish that and why what we call “knowledge” cannot be an altogether unconstrained fiction but must in some way be related to reality. \nThe theory of knowledge that we have called Radical Constructivism attempts to provide an answer to both these questions. It does this by replacing the relation between the knower and the known. Traditional epistemology has always taken it as a matter of course that there is a knowable ontic world and that it is the knower’s task to get to know and to describe it.Ӷ4Ӻ The activity of “knowing,” thus, was always seen as the acquisition of something that was already there. Our theory, instead, focuses on the activity of “knowing” as a constructive activity whose results are not merely compilations of material which the knower passively receives through the senses or through some other experiential conduit, but rather coordinations of elements which originate, within the knower, as products of the knower’s own activities of generating and coordinating. Isolating elements in one’s experiential field and relating them to one another are mutually dependent activities. “Knowledge” and the process of cognizing are therefore seen as inseparable. They reciprocally entail one another in the same way as drawing a “figure” entails categorizing the sheet of paper as “ground.” \nKnowledge, thus, becomes the product of an active, constructive mind.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°,^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°,^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°,^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1568368900928°

|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Ty2oeyo7cj","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","startOffset":2888,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ7Ӻ","endOffset":4673°Ӻ,"quote":"The second question to be answered concerns the cognizing activity itself, how it produces what we call “knowledge” and what relation obtains between that knowledge and the black box of ontic reality. For though we relinquish the traditional requirement that knowledge must depict, correspond to, or represent the real world, we must nevertheless (if we want to avoid the absurdity of solipsism) establish that and why what we call “knowledge” cannot be an altogether unconstrained fiction but must in some way be related to reality. \nThe theory of knowledge that we have called Radical Constructivism attempts to provide an answer to both these questions. It does this by replacing the relation between the knower and the known. Traditional epistemology has always taken it as a matter of course that there is a knowable ontic world and that it is the knower’s task to get to know and to describe it.Ӷ4Ӻ The activity of “knowing,” thus, was always seen as the acquisition of something that was already there. Our theory, instead, focuses on the activity of “knowing” as a constructive activity whose results are not merely compilations of material which the knower passively receives through the senses or through some other experiential conduit, but rather coordinations of elements which originate, within the knower, as products of the knower’s own activities of generating and coordinating. Isolating elements in one’s experiential field and relating them to one another are mutually dependent activities. “Knowledge” and the process of cognizing are therefore seen as inseparable. They reciprocally entail one another in the same way as drawing a “figure” entails categorizing the sheet of paper as “ground.” \nKnowledge, thus, becomes the product of an active, constructive mind.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°,^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°,^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°,^"jQuery321072675465931287662":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1568368900928°