KARL JASPERS
FORUM
TA
93 (Müller)
Commentary
4
IS
RADICAL
CONCTRUCTIVISM ANTI-SCIENTIFIC ?
by
Günther Greindl and Peter
Krieg
13
April 2007, posted 21 April 2007
[ The
following exchange has recently appeared in the RC discussion list, in the context
of a longer exchange about science and constructivism ('is constructivism
anti-scientific ?'). It is included here
because it deals with an important question about constructivism, that is
discussed in section C[23-24] of TA93. ]
----------------------------------------------------
<1>
I
would like to ask the following question:
My
belief so far has always been that constructivism, and also radical
constructivism (RC) wanted to propose an alternate model to scientific realism
or other worldviews
in regard to what our knowledge of the world means - given the knowledge we have accumulated so far.
<2>
In
other words: that RC asserts that given our body of knowledge, we would have to
be radical
constructivists (nice
recursion).
<3>
In
recent discussions on this list, I have tried to contend that the existing body
of knowledge rather points to scientific
realism - that one has to be inconsistent or "bend" words to remain
radical constructivist with a good (?) conscience.
<4>
(Disclaimer:
My intention is not to fathom what the different philosophies entail, but
rather which worldview a rational being would have to adopt given the current
knowledge).
<5>
But,
my view of RC has changed a bit: it seems that RC (or at least it's proponents)
are not interested in the question of if RC is the most consistent epistemology, but rather it is just
adopted axiomatically. No further body
of evidence can destroy the RC assumptions, because they are simply axioms (and
everything else is debased as mere construction).
<6>
But
this attitude is paradigmatic of all non-scientific world views. Namely adopting axioms, what one chooses to
believe, and not going with empirical evidence. An RC adherent can never be convinced to
change his mind - it is already set. This
is a quite questionable philosophy, or not ?
<7>
And
as it's founding assumption is non-scientific, it will, regardless of it's intentions, have
anti-scientific effects in human society.
I
would be interested in your opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
Günther
Greindl
Department
of Philosophy of Science
University
of Vienna
e-mail
<guenther.greindl@univie.ac.at>
----------------------------------------------------
<8>
Science,
like all concepts of knowledge including RC, is based on a metaphysical a
priori, namely that the universe is ruled by causality and determinism. This axiom can neither be proved nor
disproved, but it is necessary to enable to observe regularities and rules (aka
natural laws...),
and thus to allow knowledge and prediction.
If the a priori would
be a chaotic universe, experience would be strictly historical
and no knowledge or prediction could be
inferred from it.
<9>
So
IMHO the issue is not whether RC is more or less scientific or even anti-scientific, but rather
whether the deductions of our metaphysical a
priori assumptions (= empirical observations + rationalistic assumptions
= knowledge) can be tested against an
objective reality (scientific realism) or
only against the a priori itself (RC).
<10>
Another
basic a priori that RC shares with the rest of science is the observer (or
actor). The definition of the actor
might differ, but the concept is shared.
Without observer, no science (including RC).
----------------------------------------------------
Peter
Krieg
e-mail
<KriegPeter@aol.com>