Thursday, February 19, 2009
Questions on Constructivism
How is it that constructivists know we can not know objective reality? Wouldn't one have to know objective reality to objectively know that we cannot know objective reality? (Wow, that's a lot of "objective" words). It seems to me that the underlying statement is, "We cannot know objective reality, except that we know we cannot know objective reality." (apologies if I am setting up a "straw-man"...I'm posing the statement to better clarify my question)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Piaget (1937) claimed that intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself. This is not to deny the existence of an objective world, but rather to emphasize that it is only possible to know that world through experience. If there exists any absolutes regarding a concept that you are trying to come to understand, your developing experience, and indeed knowledge, tells you nothing about what they are.
ReplyDeleteLike you said, constructivism does not deny the existence of an objective reality, but it does say that we can never know what that reality is. We each know only what we have individually constructed. Some have just constructed more than others, but none of us know all.
In a religious context, one can ask for wisdom from God, and he will reveal to us understandings and give us wisdom. We can move ourselves through experience toward knowing all, but we will never truly know all – only God knows all. We are made in his image, but lack the ability to see all of mathematics, its beauty, and its connections. We just go along making sense of the divine connections that God has laid out in front of us to discover.
"Piaget (1937) claimed that intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself. This is not to deny the existence of an objective world, but rather to emphasize that it is only possible to know that world through experience. If there exists any absolutes regarding a concept that you are trying to come to understand, your developing experience, and indeed knowledge, tells you nothing about what they are."
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand that, but all that means is that I have no reason for believing that what one says about constructivism (or anything for that matter) corresponds with objective reality. If one person has an experience that is in contradiction with my own, then we are at a crossroads; either both of us are wrong, or only one of us is wrong, but we cannot both be right. If we cannot know objective reality, then we cannot know what the right answer is...but we do ALL claim to know right answers.
I have an issue is with the word "discover". If we can disover something, then we can know it personally and not just an experience of that something.
"Like you said, constructivism does not deny the existence of an objective reality, but it does say that we can never know what that reality is. We each know only what we have individually constructed. Some have just constructed more than others, but none of us know all."
Yes, but how do I know that the statement, "we can never know what reality is," really does correspond with objective reality? How do I know that statement is true?
My contention again is that by denying the knowability of reality, one is saying they know nothing of objective reality EXCEPT that one cannot know objective reality. Is that not a self-contradiction?