Well, if I understand you, you are saying you are not argueing from
any philosophical position, so if I have mistaken it for a form of constructivism, my apologies. It sounded like a form of constructivism to me...
Quote:
|
On an epistemological continuum, objectivisim and constructivism would represent opposite extremes. Various types of constructivism have emerged. We can distinguish between radical, social, physical, evolutionary, postmodern constructivism, social constructionism, information-processing constructivism and cybernetic systems to name but some types more commonly referred to (Steffe & Gale, 1995; Prawat, 1996; Heylighen, 1993). Ernest (1995) points out that "there are as many varieties of constructivism as there are researchers" (p.459) . Psychologist Ernst von Glasersfeld whose thinking has been profoundly influenced by the theories of Piaget, is typically associated with radical constructivism - radical "because it breaks with convention and develops a theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect an objective, ontological reality but exclusively an ordering and organization of a world constituted by our experience" (von Glasersfeld, 1984, p.24). Von Glasersfeld defines radical constructivism according to the conceptions of knowledge. He sees knowledge as being actively received either through the senses or by way of communication. It is actively constructed by the cognizing subject. Cognition is adaptive and allows one to organize the experiential world, not to discover an objective reality (von Glasersfeld, 1989).
|
Constructivism: Philosophical & Epistemological Foundations
So you have in any case found a mathematical basis for pointing out that anything anyone says is an assumption?
Isn't that what the Constructivists say?
