1.

With this distinction plays King Solomon, who proposes two quarreling mothers to cut the child in two and give each half. Watzlawick plays with such embarrassments in many of his stories. The mother must answer or hide in the face of the insinuation in the question egocentrically that she is egocentric.

2.

This wonderful story I got from Heinz von Foerster (Entdecken:86)

3.

I want to tell you a story about it. In the enlightened Middle Ages hypothetical constructions such as those of Copernicus were called systems. System was an imaginary explanation that could not be proved because it was based on hypotheses, i.e. assumed assumptions. In the dispute over the heliocentric planetary system, Cardinal Bellarmino said to G. Galilei: "Be reasonable: call your ideas hypotheses, otherwise they are heresy". One can interpret the advice of the Cardinal as G. Galilei apparently did: If G. Galileo would have called his ideas as hypotheses, he would have admitted that he did not know and could not know whether he is right. His whole system would only have been one possibility - what it really is in my eyes. N. Copernicus and G. Galilei used the heliocentric planetary system as an explanation for certain phenomena in the starry sky, which - like every phenomenon - could of course be explained differently. According to the usual story, G. Galileo thought he knew the truth , even if he did not want to be burned for it. He just swore away and later said, "And it's turning, isn't it? K. Popper said much later than the Cardinal again that hypotheses can only be falsified, but never verified. That is why science always remains hypothetical. That the earth rotates, and that it rotates around the sun, are - scientifically seen - hypotheses.

J. Konorsky also makes it clear with his experiment that Cardinal Bellarmino was probably not interested in the falsifiability of hypotheses - because G. Galilei's hypotheses are as difficult to falsify as those of I. Pavlov. If one makes the appropriate attempts, one will receive quite surely also the prognosticated results. The Cardinal only wanted G. Galilei to describe his construction as a possible explanation. The Cardinal just knew what explanations and hypotheses are in the sense of systems theory, even if he had probably never heard of systems theory before. I. Newton explicitly said what G. Galilei perhaps already meant: "Hypothesis non fingo" (I do not invent hypotheses). A. Einstein showed that I. Newton only did not notice on which "inventions" he based his system. G. Galilei and I. Newton did not see their blind spots. G. Galilei did not see where he stood (perspective) and I. Newton did not see that he argued in absolute space and time. I will come back to this story later.