Why Radical Constructivism Has not Become a Paradigm

Gadenne, Volker

Volume 6 · Number 1 · Pages 77–83

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Why Radical Constructivism Has not Become a Paradigm

Volker Gadenne

Abstract

Problem: The paper investigates some reasons why RC has not become a mainstream endeavor. Method: The central assumptions of RC are summarized. Analysis is made of how each of these assumptions corresponds to other views, especially to intuitive beliefs that are widely accepted. Is RC consistent with these beliefs, supported by them, or incompatible with them? Results: The construction hypothesis is supported by the results of cognitive science and neurophysiology. However, the closed-system hypothesis and antirealism are in conflict with deeply rooted convictions of most people. Some ethical and educational aspects claimed by RC are generally accepted but they are not specifically implications of RC. Implications: In the near future, RC will probably not become the leading paradigm or a mainstream endeavor in the sciences or in philosophy.

Key words: closed-system hypothesis, fallibilism, intentionality, pluralism, realism, tolerance

Citation

Gadenne V. (2010) Why radical constructivism has not become a paradigm. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 77–83. http://constructivist.info/6/1/077

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

References

Albert H. (1968) Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen. English translation: Albert H. (1985) Treatise on critical reason. Princeton University Press, Prince-ton NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Albert H. (1987) Kritik der reinen Erkenntnislehre. Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Devitt M. (1991) Realism and truth. University Press, Princeton. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Dobzhansky T. (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Foerster H. von (1973) On constructing a reality. In: Preiser F. E. (ed.) Environmental design research, Vol. 2. Dowdon, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudberg: 35–46. Reprinted in: Foerster H. von (2003) Understanding understanding. Springer, New York: 211–228. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Gadenne V. (2008) The construction of realism. Constructivist Foundations 3(3): 153–159. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/3/153.gadenne

Gergen K. (1999) An invitation to social construction. Sage, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Goodman N. (1978) Ways of worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Grossmann R. (1990) The fourth way: A theory of knowledge. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Kenny V. (2007) Distinguishing Ernst von Glasersfeld’s “radical constructivism” from Humberto Maturana’s “radical realism.” Constructivist Foundations 2(2–3): 58–64. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/2/2–3/058.kenny

Kim J. (1996) Philosophy of mind. Westview Press, Boulder. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Kuhn T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Lachman R., Lachman J. L. & Butterfield E. C. (1979) Cognitive psychology and information processing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Llinás R. R. (2001) I of the vortex. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Matthews M. R. (2000) Appraising Constructivism in science and mathematic education. In: Phillips D. C. (ed.) Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: 161–193. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Maturana H. & Varela F. (1979) Autopoiesis and cognition. Reidel, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Maturana H. & Varela F. (1987) The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. New Science Library, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Musgrave A. (1999) Essays on realism and rationalism, Rodopi, Amsterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Neisser U. (1967) Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Neisser U. (1976) Cognition and reality. Freeman, San Francisco. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Nüse R., Groeben N., Freitag B. & Schreier M. (1991) Über die Erfindung/en des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Phillips D. C. (ed.) (2000) Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Popper K. (1945) The open society and its enemies, Vol. 2. The high tide of prophecy. Routledge, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Popper K. (1972) Objective knowledge. Clarendon Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Quale A. (2007) Radical constructivism, and the sin of relativism. Science & Education 16: 231–266. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Riegler A. (2005) Editorial: The constructivist challenge. Constructivist Foundations 1(1): 1–8. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/1/1/001.riegler

Riegler A. (2007) Is Glasersfeld’s constructivism a dangerous intellectual tendency? In: Glanville R. & Riegler A. (eds.) The importance of being Ernst. Echoraum, Vienna: 263–275. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/46

Roth G. (1986) Selbstorganisation – Selbsterhaltung – Selbstreferentialität: Prinzipien der Organisation der Lebewesen und ihre Folgen für die Beziehung zwischen Organismus und Umwelt. In: Dress A., Hendrichs H. & Küppers G. (eds.) Selbstorganisation. Piper, München: 149–180. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Searle J. (1983) Intentionality. University Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Searle J. (1995) The construction of social reality. Free Press,  New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Vollmer G. (1981) Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie. Hirzel, Stuttgart. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Vollmer G. (2005) How is it that we can know this world? New arguments in evolutionary epistemology. In: Hösle V. & Illies C. (eds.) Darwinism and philosophy. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame IN: 259–274. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Wendel H. J. (1990) Moderner Relativismus. Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

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

LATEST ISSUES

FOLLOW US

Abstract

Citation

Similar articles

References

Comments: 0