Science Forums 2

[Overdog]

The common thread between all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on a constructed reality.[citation needed] Indeed, a basic presupposition of constructivism is that Reality-As-It-Is-In-Itself (Ontological Reality) is utterly incoherent as a concept, since there is no way to verify how one has finally reached a definitive notion of Reality. One must already have Reality in mind--that is, one must already know what Reality consists of--in order to confirm when one has at last "hit bottom." Richard Rorty has said that all claims to Realism can be reduced to intuition (Consequences of Pragmatism, chs. 9, 11). The Realist/Anti-Realist debate can be reduced, in the end, to a conflict of intuitions: "It seems to us that..." vs "Well, it seems to us that..." A realist would not like to construe the argument in this way, and would say that one of these is misled, that one group perceives correctly, and the other perceives incorrectly. Strict constructivists will complain that there is no way to confirm one way or another, since the goal of inquiry (Reality) must be assumed to be understood at the outset. The Realist hope, in a constructivist view, is simply to arbitrarily freeze the infinite circularity that plagues human reasoning which vainly hopes to validate itself with a secure foundation.

Famously, this rather relativist theory is seen by some to contradict itself as a true affirmation: because this view also is "constructed," that is, made and not found, built by human hands rather than discovered in Nature or Reality. Consistent constructivists, however, will reply to this tu quoque (your theory, too!) critique with a rejoinder of their own: bien sur! (of course our theory, too!). It is an obvious and foolish claim for a constructivist to play a realist with regard to his or her own perspective...

Constructivist epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thought this was interesting.