Constructivist epistemology: Self-refuting or legitimate?

[Individualist Constructivism]

For investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructi ... istemology
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CONSTRUC.html

What is NSG's view on constructivist epistemology? Does NSG regard it as a legitimate outlook on the universe, or is it inherently self-refuting (humans telling other humans about the universe that the universe is merely a construct by humans), and in this sense, descend into relativism?

In my view, constructivist epistemology is not so much self-refuting as it is self-limiting. There is no mention that even a strong constructivist view of the universe is necessarily honestly correct, rather is the front of human knowledge inbetween the 'gap' of knowledge.

In that regard, is the 'universe' limited by the range of human perception, and is the range of human perception variable based on other conditions (social context, etc.)?

What is the epistemological philosophy's effect on science? Does it merely set a new regard for science (to overcome one's construct), or reject a key empiricist notion of science?

[Galborg]

Constructivists maintain that scientific knowledge is constructed by scientists and not discovered from the world.

It is just Creationism with long words.
It doesn't just reject a key empiricist notion of science it rejects the very existence of the Universe Itself.

Take the constructivists to a tall building "Okay mister Gravity is just a Theory, jump."

[SaintB]

Sure why not... what are we talking about?

[Galborg]

Sure why not... what are we talking about?

Read the OP

[Individualist Constructivism]

Constructivists maintain that scientific knowledge is constructed by scientists and not discovered from the world.

It is just Creationism with long words.
It doesn't just reject a key empiricist notion of science it rejects the very existence of the Universe Itself.

Take the constructivists to a tall building "Okay mister Gravity is just a Theory, jump."

Not necessarily. Just because constructivist epistemology regards science as a viewpoint that reflects the convictions of it's interpreters does not mean that it disregards science, nor the integrity of it's theories. It rather states that the theories and hypothesis science comes up with are more reflections of a human's explanation than the actual non-subjective qualities of the universe.

For example, what largely gives the atom it's denomination? Would the particles be seen as they are by humans in any other light? Yes, atomic theory exists, but the substrate that humanity uses to mathematically calculate and envision this universe is a human construct. Not necessarily to a negative extent.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Individdi Comstiputia, you make too many complicated threads with big words.

[Individualist Constructivism]

Individdi Comstiputia, you make too many complicated threads with big words.

Sorry. I like the smell of google searches in the morning.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Individdi Comstiputia, you make too many complicated threads with big words.

Sorry. I like the smell of google searches in the morning.

You need to stop. Whenever I see one of your threads, my brain starts hurting. Why can't you be a normal poster, and just start threads about the Confederacy and abortion, that slowly devolve into flame-fests?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

It is just Creationism with long words.
It doesn't just reject a key empiricist notion of science it rejects the very existence of the Universe Itself.

Take the constructivists to a tall building "Okay mister Gravity is just a Theory, jump."

Not necessarily. Just because constructivist epistemology regards science as a viewpoint that reflects the convictions of it's interpreters does not mean that it disregards science, nor the integrity of it's theories. It rather states that the theories and hypothesis science comes up with are more reflections of a human's explanation than the actual non-subjective qualities of the universe.

For example, what largely gives the atom it's denomination? Would the particles be seen as they are by humans in any other light? Yes, atomic theory exists, but the substrate that humanity uses to mathematically calculate and envision this universe is a human construct. Not necessarily to a negative extent.

At the risk of sounding like an idiot...which is most likely -

Mathematics underpins our understanding of the universe via other disciplines (physics for example). Certainly a human construct but proven through validation and verification of method by replication of experimentation. It is a method to understand the universe based on fundamental truisms.

Gravity exits > we can prove it exists > we think how and why does it exists > we hypothesise and theorise > we test > we replicate > we see if anything else applies and how > ...go back to we can prove it exists - a chain of continuous improvement of the understanding of the universe based on observation and empiricism, not on what we want to see subjectively.

[Individualist Constructivism]

Sorry. I like the smell of google searches in the morning.

You need to stop. Whenever I see one of your threads, my brain starts hurting. Why can't you be a normal poster, and just start threads about the Confederacy and abortion, that slowly devolve into flame-fests?

Did you really just ask a constructivist to be 'normal'?

[Farnhamia]

You need to stop. Whenever I see one of your threads, my brain starts hurting. Why can't you be a normal poster, and just start threads about the Confederacy and abortion, that slowly devolve into flame-fests?

Did you really just ask a constructivist to be 'normal'?

You might try.

[Individualist Constructivism]

Not necessarily. Just because constructivist epistemology regards science as a viewpoint that reflects the convictions of it's interpreters does not mean that it disregards science, nor the integrity of it's theories. It rather states that the theories and hypothesis science comes up with are more reflections of a human's explanation than the actual non-subjective qualities of the universe.

For example, what largely gives the atom it's denomination? Would the particles be seen as they are by humans in any other light? Yes, atomic theory exists, but the substrate that humanity uses to mathematically calculate and envision this universe is a human construct. Not necessarily to a negative extent.

At the risk of sounding like an idiot...which is most likely -

Mathematics underpins our understanding of the universe via other disciplines (physics for example). Certainly a human construct but proven through validation and verification of method by replication of experimentation. It is a method to understand the universe based on fundamental truisms.

Gravity exits > we can prove it exists > we think how and why does it exists > we hypothesise and theorise > we test > we replicate > we see if anything else applies and how > ...go back to we can prove it exists - a chain of continuous improvement of the understanding of the universe based on observation and empiricism, not on what we want to see subjectively.

You are fundamentally right. Reality does exist and does confine a series of observances, but it is not the sensation of that reality, I contend, that creates the theories to explain circumstance; it is rather the construct of the human realm of knowledge and perception that creates the theories to, for lack of a better word, 'justify' perception.

Perception itself is wholly the idea of the human mind. In socialization, we do not communicate with universal 'others', but with our ideas of those 'others'. Lack of knowledge about others remains a variable, but it is not a variable of external significance, it is a variable of internal uncertainty.

[SaintB]

Sure why not... what are we talking about?

Read the OP

Learn 2 Humor

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You need to stop. Whenever I see one of your threads, my brain starts hurting. Why can't you be a normal poster, and just start threads about the Confederacy and abortion, that slowly devolve into flame-fests?

Did you really just ask a constructivist to be 'normal'?

See, I don't have any clue what the heck that is!

[Individualist Constructivism]

Did you really just ask a constructivist to be 'normal'?

See, I don't have any clue what the heck that is!

Alas, the world of knowledge exists. It's not like there is an objective reality upon which you can base your sensory perception or anything.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

See, I don't have any clue what the heck that is!

Alas, the world of knowledge exists. It's not like there is an objective reality upon which you can base your sensory perception or anything.

1. Hey, you put it in your signature!

2. Interesting. I do mean that, and I would say I am going to research it further, except that I'm not. So. Yeah.

[Individualist Constructivism]

Alas, the world of knowledge exists. It's not like there is an objective reality upon which you can base your sensory perception or anything.

1. Hey, you put it in your signature!

2. Interesting. I do mean that, and I would say I am going to research it further, except that I'm not. So. Yeah.

1. I consider such a compliment a virtue.

2. Understandable. It is essentially that reality as humans see it is a construct rather than a constant which can be perceived, or more importantly in counter to objectivism, sensed.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot...which is most likely -

Mathematics underpins our understanding of the universe via other disciplines (physics for example). Certainly a human construct but proven through validation and verification of method by replication of experimentation. It is a method to understand the universe based on fundamental truisms.

Gravity exits > we can prove it exists > we think how and why does it exists > we hypothesise and theorise > we test > we replicate > we see if anything else applies and how > ...go back to we can prove it exists - a chain of continuous improvement of the understanding of the universe based on observation and empiricism, not on what we want to see subjectively.

You are fundamentally right. Reality does exist and does confine a series of observances, but it is not the sensation of that reality, I contend, that creates the theories to explain circumstance; it is rather the construct of the human realm of knowledge and perception that creates the theories to, for lack of a better word, 'justify' perception.

Perception itself is wholly the idea of the human mind. In socialization, we do not communicate with universal 'others', but with our ideas of those 'others'. Lack of knowledge about others remains a variable, but it is not a variable of external significance, it is a variable of internal uncertainty.

I have two objects front of me. The person sat next to me sees two objects. We can research various attributes of the objects and come to different conclusions as to why those attributes exist and/or function. If we are not objective how, through the scientific method, can we ultimately reach the same conclusion regarding those attributes?

I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean regarding perception. It seems to me that you are indicating that we are not at all objective when all is said an done. If that is case how can we replicate, via blind methods, other's experiments? Or how discoveries are made independently of each other? The most famous I suppose being Darwin and Wallace...

[Raeyh]

I just figure they are people who watched the Matrix too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1EcrD5IyxM

[Individualist Constructivism]

You are fundamentally right. Reality does exist and does confine a series of observances, but it is not the sensation of that reality, I contend, that creates the theories to explain circumstance; it is rather the construct of the human realm of knowledge and perception that creates the theories to, for lack of a better word, 'justify' perception.

Perception itself is wholly the idea of the human mind. In socialization, we do not communicate with universal 'others', but with our ideas of those 'others'. Lack of knowledge about others remains a variable, but it is not a variable of external significance, it is a variable of internal uncertainty.

I have two objects front of me. The person sat next to me sees two objects. We can research various attributes of the objects and come to different conclusions as to why those attributes exist and/or function. If we are not objective how, through the scientific method, can we ultimately reach the same conclusion regarding those attributes?

The same conclusion can be reached by fundamental operations of the human mind, understood social context, or social imperative.

Humans are objective, that was not denied. The universe is not objective. Human perception justifies the universe.

Under constructivism in my view, the same conclusions can be reached in two ways among some more;

- Social context. Our ideas of what is or what is not in the context of our society, whether unconsciously or consciously, can affect how we view things. Emotional persuasion by others, for instance, can refute the mind's origional logic and substitute it for a more 'contextually justifiable' one, owing to the inherent sociality of the human species.
- Pure chance. It may seem like an epistemological long shot, but theoretically, coming up with the same initial thoughts can lead to the same 'justification', and ultimately, the same conclusion.
- Human objectivity. It was never denied that humans have objective limits to their perception. Constructivist epistemology regards the methods of knowledge acquisition in this sense (that it is dependent upon human constructs) rather than the lack of limits to human perception.

I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean regarding perception. It seems to me that you are indicating that we are not at all objective when all is said an done. If that is case how can we replicate, via blind methods, other's experiments? Or how discoveries are made independently of each other? The most famous I suppose being Darwin and Wallace...

See above, but I will further expound that what I stated in regard to perception is that communication inherently is not objective. We do not communicate fundamentally with the other person, our regard is the limits of our internal perception and knowledge; our own idea of what the person is composed of, and thereby judging the most sufficient reply or action when in the course of socialization.

[Individualist Constructivism]

I just figure they are people who watched the Matrix too much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1EcrD5IyxM

I do think that anything close to, or seen as close to, relativism gets a bad reputation for the pretentious 'cool guy' that thinks that by saying everything is relative he gets props in philosophy.

Owing even more to self-dishonesty by justified constructs, quite ironically.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I have two objects front of me. The person sat next to me sees two objects. We can research various attributes of the objects and come to different conclusions as to why those attributes exist and/or function. If we are not objective how, through the scientific method, can we ultimately reach the same conclusion regarding those attributes?

The same conclusion can be reached by fundamental operations of the human mind, understood social context, or social imperative.

Humans are objective, that was not denied. The universe is not objective. Human perception justifies the universe.

Under constructivism in my view, the same conclusions can be reached in two ways among some more;

- Social context. Our ideas of what is or what is not in the context of our society, whether unconsciously or consciously, can affect how we view things. Emotional persuasion by others, for instance, can refute the mind's origional logic and substitute it for a more 'contextually justifiable' one, owing to the inherent sociality of the human species.
- Pure chance. It may seem like an epistemological long shot, but theoretically, coming up with the same initial thoughts can lead to the same 'justification', and ultimately, the same conclusion.
- Human objectivity. It was never denied that humans have objective limits to their perception. Constructivist epistemology regards the methods of knowledge acquisition in this sense (that it is dependent upon human constructs) rather than the lack of limits to human perception.

I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean regarding perception. It seems to me that you are indicating that we are not at all objective when all is said an done. If that is case how can we replicate, via blind methods, other's experiments? Or how discoveries are made independently of each other? The most famous I suppose being Darwin and Wallace...

See above, but I will further expound that what I stated in regard to perception is that communication inherently is not objective. We do not communicate fundamentally with the other person, our regard is the limits of our internal perception and knowledge; our own idea of what the person is composed of, and thereby judging the most sufficient reply or action when in the course of socialization.

How is the universe not objective unless you are referring to quantum mechanics and even then our objective methodology is able to discern that complexity? In terms of Newtonian thought it either is or is not. Or do you mean the entire superstrings/branes thing? I admit I am stretching my limited knowledge/understanding here so I could well be getting the wrong end of the stick here.

If we did not exist the universe would still be here and the same in terms of laws and such. Which sort of flies in the face of human perception justifying the universe. How is this possible? Because we can go back in time, geologically speaking and define existence via an objective science, when we did not exist in that time frame.

Social context - a truth is a truth whether or not some one likes it. It does not change because we make an ephemeral decision or definition regarding that truth.

Pure Chance - certainly...but more unlikely if everything is subjective as to how we define an event or attribute or object

Human objectivity - yeah this is part I'm struggling with. If our constructs define a truth, and those constructs are achieved independently of each other in terms of human learning/interaction with humans, then the construct is valid, verified and usable anywhere within the universe.

Indeed communication is not objective...isn't that why we use mathematics?

[Individualist Constructivism]

The same conclusion can be reached by fundamental operations of the human mind, understood social context, or social imperative.

Humans are objective, that was not denied. The universe is not objective. Human perception justifies the universe.

Under constructivism in my view, the same conclusions can be reached in two ways among some more;

- Social context. Our ideas of what is or what is not in the context of our society, whether unconsciously or consciously, can affect how we view things. Emotional persuasion by others, for instance, can refute the mind's origional logic and substitute it for a more 'contextually justifiable' one, owing to the inherent sociality of the human species.
- Pure chance. It may seem like an epistemological long shot, but theoretically, coming up with the same initial thoughts can lead to the same 'justification', and ultimately, the same conclusion.
- Human objectivity. It was never denied that humans have objective limits to their perception. Constructivist epistemology regards the methods of knowledge acquisition in this sense (that it is dependent upon human constructs) rather than the lack of limits to human perception.


See above, but I will further expound that what I stated in regard to perception is that communication inherently is not objective. We do not communicate fundamentally with the other person, our regard is the limits of our internal perception and knowledge; our own idea of what the person is composed of, and thereby judging the most sufficient reply or action when in the course of socialization.

How is the universe not objective unless you are referring to quantum mechanics and even then our objective methodology is able to discern that complexity? In terms of Newtonian thought it either is or is not. Or do you mean the entire superstrings/branes thing? I admit I am stretching my limited knowledge/understanding here so I could well be getting the wrong end of the stick here.

If we did not exist the universe would still be here and the same in terms of laws and such. Which sort of flies in the face of human perception justifying the universe. How is this possible? Because we can go back in time, geologically speaking and define existence via an objective science, when we did not exist in that time frame.

Social context - a truth is a truth whether or not some one likes it. It does not change because we make an ephemeral decision or definition regarding that truth.

Pure Chance - certainly...but more unlikely if everything is subjective as to how we define an event or attribute or object

Human objectivity - yeah this is part I'm struggling with. If our constructs define a truth, and those constructs are achieved independently of each other in terms of human learning/interaction with humans, then the construct is valid, verified and usable anywhere within the universe.

Indeed communication is not objective...isn't that why we use mathematics?

Constructivist epistemology uses the non-objective nature of the universe hust as much as it uses the nature that qualities in the universe, in their true form, do not have verifiability, but are human constructs. No part of this necessarily refutes, in fact the lack of verifiability even endorses, an objectively limited human mind but a constructed reality, the perception of all of these being subjective.

Constructs can be shared if the ideas meet to a common social axiom.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

How is the universe not objective unless you are referring to quantum mechanics and even then our objective methodology is able to discern that complexity? In terms of Newtonian thought it either is or is not. Or do you mean the entire superstrings/branes thing? I admit I am stretching my limited knowledge/understanding here so I could well be getting the wrong end of the stick here.

If we did not exist the universe would still be here and the same in terms of laws and such. Which sort of flies in the face of human perception justifying the universe. How is this possible? Because we can go back in time, geologically speaking and define existence via an objective science, when we did not exist in that time frame.

Social context - a truth is a truth whether or not some one likes it. It does not change because we make an ephemeral decision or definition regarding that truth.

Pure Chance - certainly...but more unlikely if everything is subjective as to how we define an event or attribute or object

Human objectivity - yeah this is part I'm struggling with. If our constructs define a truth, and those constructs are achieved independently of each other in terms of human learning/interaction with humans, then the construct is valid, verified and usable anywhere within the universe.

Indeed communication is not objective...isn't that why we use mathematics?

Constructivist epistemology uses the non-objective nature of the universe hust as much as it uses the nature that qualities in the universe, in their true form, do not have verifiability, but are human constructs. No part of this necessarily refutes, in fact the lack of verifiability even endorses, an objectively limited human mind but a constructed reality, the perception of all of these being subjective.

Constructs can be shared if the ideas meet to a common social axiom.

Then what is the purpose of constructivist epistemology?

[Individualist Constructivism]

Constructivist epistemology uses the non-objective nature of the universe hust as much as it uses the nature that qualities in the universe, in their true form, do not have verifiability, but are human constructs. No part of this necessarily refutes, in fact the lack of verifiability even endorses, an objectively limited human mind but a constructed reality, the perception of all of these being subjective.

Constructs can be shared if the ideas meet to a common social axiom.

Then what is the purpose of constructivist epistemology?

To denote how knowledge is attained, like any epistemological philosophy. Constructivism arguing that knowledge is formed to justify our own experiences rather than any objective object in the universe.