Response to Jacob: The Radical Constructivist and Society

Jacob's recent blog post commented on the misconception of the RCist having trouble in society. He gave an example of an RCist who is eating her bagel and riding her bike. Surely these activities, Jacob points out, would not be cause for, what he calls, a paranoia about metaphysical properties of her bike and bagel. Surely no one can argue that there is nothing to be gained from this type of metaphysical paranoia.

However I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what aspects of life the RCist would run into issues with. The trouble would not come with the examination of mundane objects or daily routines. The issues would arise when the RCist is participating in social institutions which are based on notion of objectivity and truth. Take, for example, the legal system. Lets suppose the RCist gets called for jury duty. While she feels comfortable with the viability of the blueberry-ness of her bagel, she would certainly have trouble reconciling her own beliefs with those of the criminal. Perhaps the criminal finds viable that his acts are legal. Our legal system requires a guilty or not guilty verdict that is based on an idea of truth or fact. She would only feel comfortable proclaiming his guilt or innocence as viable based on her previous experience. The RCist would be in a difficult position if they wished to participate in this and other social institutions based on objectivity.

How would a Radical Constructivist deal with societal needs of a democracy (like criminal justice system)?
(And to defend this question to Ed Manak- creating the next generation of democrats is one of the purported aims of public education, so to endorse a system of education (RCism) that poses problems to that system is certainly worthy of discussion).

Response to Emily: Issues with Declaring Objective Knowledge Impossible

In Emily's recent response to my question about the practicality of Radical Constructivism she noted that everyone is limited to their own experience, and "therefore there is no way for a human to be objective about anything." This seems problematic. This may be a cheap stunt to pull, but this appears to be an objective knowledge claim. A common theme I'm encountering with RCist argumentation: the need to prove Metaphysical Realism objectively false.


 Question: Am i not being charitable enough? Or does Radical Constructivism employ truth to disprove it?

Response to Shelby: Practicality of Constructivism

Shelby asked : Can one really live one's life constantly in doubt of reality and objective truth? It would seem that were one to adopt Radical Constructivism as viable then one would have some serious issues functioning in the world whilst constantly doubting the existence and nature of one's external world.

My mind jumps to the famous Socratic saying that the unexamined life is not worth living. This is not to imply that one must be constantly examining in order to lead a fulfilling human life, more that one must be ready and willing to examine when the situation calls for it. I think that a similar approach to Radical Constructivism would be prudent. I doubt that Von G. woke up every morning and would exhaust the cognitive energy on questioning the external properties of his bagel, or whether or not it even existed.

This does, however, leave us with problems. If one accepts Radical Constructivism and has chosen to employ its inherent agnosticism only when prudent, one must learn at what point doubting the nature of one's reality is actually prudent. It seems obvious when it might not be a good idea. I think a baseball player attempting to hit a pitch ought not question the metaphysical properties of the ball. I am fairly unsure however as to when it would be prudent to employ this doubt.

When would it be prudent for the Radical Constructivist to doubt reality and objective truth in everyday life?

Pedagogical Paradigms in Constructivist Classrooms

I am interested in suspending for a moment my hesitation to accept Radical Constructivism and trying to imagine the pedagogical implications of Radical Constructivism in the classroom. It would seem that the Radical Constructivist viewpoint, if accepted, calls for a total overhaul of the system of institutionalized education we as a nation currently employ. A system that attempts to impart truth and knowledge would be discounted by radical constructivism. A system in which things are at best viable based on past experience would certainly make evaluating students more difficult, if not entirely impossible.Surely to attempt to change a students viable conception to that of your own would imply that you find yours superior, or that there was something subjective about your conception. Math appears, at least at first glance, to be a field which contains indisputable truths. 1+1 will always equal two. I'm uncertain as to how the Radical Constructivist would get around this as an indubitable knowledge claim.

Were it to seem 'viable' to a student that 1+1 came out to some other figure, would a teacher be in a position to correct them under RC theory?