{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023529411764705882, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.801136363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Amnesian Concept of Nature

It seems ’natural’ to take one’s point of departure in modern-day ideas when studying the concept of nature. It is, after all, the modern-day concept of nature which concerns us. The problem is that the concept of nature which has developed through the centuries was not constructed by people who necessarily emphasized those aspects of the concept which concern us most today. By working backwards, we thus run the risk of a form of ’evolutionary conceptual teleology’ which can be misleading with regard to the use of the concept in the past; the relationship of past usages to present usages, and the actual complexity of modern-day usages. According to John Torrance’s introduction, the papers in The concept of nature were first presented at Oxford University as lectures ’given in memory of Herbert Spencer to the history of science’. Spencer is memorialized because he was the first to attempt ’an evolutionary theory of scientific progress, a project which has been revived in our