Debate on Constructivism 0

Debate on Constructivism

caveblogem, author of the excellent blog Pretty Good on Paper has agreed to a discussion of Constructivism. He has published his first post on the topic and I will shortly reply. I will identify my posts on the topic by giving them the titles Debate on Constructivism 1, Debate on Constructivism 2, etc.

Before getting into the debate, I felt I should outline my own position. I have made a separate post of this – which you are now reading – to avoid cluttering up my first contribution to the debate. It will be interesting to see whether I modify my views.

Please note that this is not a private conversation: all are invited to comment on the posts on either blog.

In this brief outline of my position on what we might call “the real world” I will avoid using words such as “reality” and “truth” as these pose problems of their own: individual thinkers may give them very different definitions. While the term “the real world” (or simply “the world” for short) is rather vague, I think most readers will have an intuitive grasp of what I mean by it.

I believe (and I use the word “believe” advisedly) that there is a real world which exists independently of the human mind (or any other kind of mind) and that its existence and nature in no manner depend on our knowledge or understanding of them. In that sense, I am what might be called a “scientific realist” and I do indeed believe that it is science that provides our most accurate description of the physical world.

I am aware that some thinkers consider it a problem that we obtain our knowledge through the senses and the rational faculty of the brain and that we do not have “direct” knowledge of the world. In the first place, we are stuck with this situation and just have to get on with it. In the second, I don’t know what this “direct” knowledge is supposed to be and I don’t think anyone else does, either.

In order for there to be understanding of the world, there has to be an organ of understanding, in our case the human brain and its faculties (“the mind” for short). Isn’t that what “understanding” and “knowledge” are: what my brain makes of the world that it detects around it? That does not mean that we can make of the world what we will or that any explanation is as good as any other. We do possess the ability to check our theories against experience and to see whether they are adequate. If they are not adequate we should think again and find a better explanation.

If anyone claims that our knowledge of the world is merely a construct of the mind, an amenable fiction, or that any explanation of the world is as good as any other – for example that the stories of revealed religion are as good as the explanations of science – then I would suggest they consider technology. The fact that our understanding of the world that we have derived from science has been put to use in medicine, space travel, communications, and an endless list of applications proves that we do possess real knowledge of the world. Your mobile doesn’t work because you imagine it does: it works because the knowledge of the world that went into its production accurately represents the world.

About SilverTiger

I live in Islington with my partner, "Tigger". I blog about our life and our travels, using my own photos for illustration.
This entry was posted in Thoughts and Ideas and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Debate on Constructivism 0

  1. Oscarandre says:

    I liked your technology analogy, Silvertiger. Perhaps where alternative views of the world clash, however, is not in the what of reality/being/experience, but in the why. For example, it is possible to look at Scientific knowledge, “believe” in that knowledge and build new understandings of the world through the experience – what we learn, however, can sometimes only raise a greater sense of awe and wonder that begs even more accutely for a context of meaning. Hmmm – I realise that this reply is not very clear and could even look like a rationale for Intelligent Design (which it isn’t). I look forward to your continued debate.

  2. SilverTiger says:

    I agree that there is more to life than scientific fact and that a large part of our perception of reality is composed of matters such as value, beauty, awe, etc.

    I didn’t cover this side of things because I was trying to give a brief outline of my views in preparation for the discussion. Maybe these topics can be discussed in more detail later.

    Thanks for flagging them up.

    Email SilverTiger

Genuine comments are welcome. Spam and comments with commercial URLs will be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s