KARL JASPERS FOPRUM

TA31 (vanFraassen / Feyerabend )

Commentary 21 (to several discussants)

( UNDERSTANDING CONSTRUCTIVISM )
by John McCaffrey
19 October 2003, posted 26 October 2003

<1>
As Dykstra has mentioned we seem to have reached an impasse as far as the content of RC thought is concerned. My understanding (as far as I have let it be known in this list) of RC is, indeed, different from Dykstra's, Von Glaserfeld's, and (perhaps) Muller's. On this point we will, I suppose, 'agree to disagree'.

<2>
However, my main bone of contention is not really with the CONTENT of RC ... for me this is neither here nor there ... but with its USAGE. The nail-like properties of RC are not in its theoretical manifestation, but its (possible/conceivable) application, as exemplified by Muller's comments in regards to religious thought. After all, a nail and a bolt serve essentially the same purposes despite their different forms.

<3>
As far as I understand Muller (which is, admittedly, probably far from his intentions), it would seem that religious conflicts could be negated through the universal adoption of RC/0-D approaches to resolving ideological issues.

<4>
Of this I have no doubt (and, on a personal level, I think I genuinely agree with Muller's proposals). However, the same could be said of any system of thought. Indeed, we may be contentious and posit that even Hitler believed that "If only everybody thought the way I do, conflict would be no more."

<5>
What we have with this situation is the groundwork for a kind of scientific fascism. The fact that Muller writes (C15) " The 0-D view then still includes the use of as-if-MIR (working ontology), useful in many areas, and thus it does not contradict results of objective studies, in areas where they are appropriate." displays a persistent belief in (scientific) objectivity despite all protestations to the contrary in his theoretical writings. The attempt to align a supposedly benign theoretical edifice with the 'objective' sciences is troubling because it actually presupposes a Truth ... a presupposition which is flatly denied in the theory.

<6>

This contradiction is perhaps lost on Dykstra (an 'objective' scientist himself), who appears to elevate RC theory above its practical applications in society.

<7>
Of course I am not suggesting that anyone on this list intends to form a New World Order based upon RC thought (although who knows ? Anything is possible!) ... but I would be astonished if any of the contributors to this discussion could disagree with the idea that potentially RC poses as much of a threat to liberal society as any other system of thought.

"p.s. I am prepared to be astonished!" (Cheeky, I know, but this is so much fun !)

-------------------------------------------------

John McCaffrey