Volume 6 · Number 1 · Pages 12–18
Objections to Radical Constructivism

Andreas Quale

Log in to download the full text for free

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: A number of objections that are frequently raised in the literature against radical constructivism, including: the charge of solipsism, allegations of self-refutation, social and moral reservations, and the accusation that RC cannot explain the success of science. Problem: These four objections are sought to be refuted. Results: 1. Solipsism is only troublesome against the background of a realist ontological perspective. 2. The truth-value of any proposition is only defined relative to some ontological context, thus self-refutation, as constituting a logical problem, does not arise. 3. Any ethical argumentation derives from one’s own personal views on ethical matters: their construction being a personal responsibility such that no one else can tell a person how to construct the “right ethics.” 4. In the relativist ontology of radical constructivism, a scientific theory is regarded as a model imposed on natural phenomena; its success is due to the capabilities of its constructor/scientists. Implications: It is found that the objections are based on an (overt or tacit) adoption of the antithetical viewpoint of scientific realism. In other words, radical constructivism is being criticised for not promoting a realist ontology.

Key words: ethics, ontology, realism, relativism, science, self-refutation, solipsism


Quale A. (2010) Objections to radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 12–18. http://constructivist.info/6/1/012

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Vörös S. & Riegler A. (2017) A Plea for not Watering Down the Unseemly: Reconsidering Francisco Varela’s Contribution to Science
Quale A. (2008) The Issue of Reductionism. A Radical Constructivist Approach to the Philosophy of Physics
Quale A. (2012) On the Role of Constructivism in Mathematical Epistemology
Quale A. (2007) The Epistemic Relativism of Radical Constructivism: Some Implications for Teaching the Natural Sciences
Larochelle M. & Désautels J. (2011) The Science Wars Go Local: The Reception of Radical Constructivism in Quebec


Bickhard M. H. (1997) Constructivisms and relativisms: A shopper’s guide. Science & Education 6(1–2): 29–42. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Geelan D. (1997) Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science & Education 6(1–2): 15–28. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1993) Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In: Tobin K. (ed.) The practice of constructivism in science education. AAA Press, Washington: 23–38. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/151
Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism. Falmer Press, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (2000) Problems of constructivism. In: Steffe L. P. & Thompson P. W. (eds.) Radical constructivism in action. Routledge/Falmer, London: 3–9. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/233
Glasersfeld E. von (2007) Key works in radical constructivism. Sense, Rotterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (2008) Who conceives of society? Constructivist Foundations 3(2): 59–64. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/2/059.glasersfeld
Kuhn T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mautner T. (ed.) (2000) The Penguin dictionary of philosophy. Penguin, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McCarty L. P. & Schwandt T. A. (2000) Seductive illusions:. In: Phillips D. C. (ed.) Constructivism in education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 41–85. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nanda M. (2003) Prophets facing backwards. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Putnam H. (1975) Philosophical papers. Volume I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Quale A. (2008) Radical constructivism. Sense, Rotterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Russell B. & Whitehead A. N. (1927) Principia mathematica. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Saalmann G. (2007) Arguments opposing the radicalism of radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 3(1): 1–6. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/1/001.saalmann
Sjøberg S. (2000) Science and scientists. The SAS-study.Acta Didactica 1/2000. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Somerville D. M. Y. (1958) The elements of non-Euclidean geometry. Dover, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.