Talk:Constructivism (philosophy of science)

message: I have found epistemology to mean "underlying theory" in education and psychology.  For instance, in education, epistemology is what is necessary to create curricula and a syllabus.  In psychology, epistomology can mean cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, or psychodynamic (the latter two being related to constructivism).  
The Constructivist disambiguation page lists types of constructivist whose underlying theory should be described on this page as collective constructivism as it applies:
* Constructivism (learning theory)
** Constructivist teaching methods
* Constructivism (psychological school) psychological research and therapy
* Social constructionism knowledge theory through communication as in Family systems
** Social constructivism cognitive development in the social and cultural context
* Constructivism (mathematics) objective view of math and proofs
# Social construcTIVism and social construcTIONism probably have the same meaning in the "here and now" as they describe how shared cognition (or consensually accepted reality) is created.  Social constructionism is the basis of family therapy, and it has decidedly behavioral roots, which hows constructivism's exceedingly wide scope.
# Teaching methods might be better called education and can be combined with learning theory, and, as the origin of the epistemology it closely relates to psychology as knowledge building is considered therapy for self-construct (humanistic) or the conscious/unconscious (psychodynamic).  The education page's first line describes Piaget as the founder of constructivism, which is pretty far off mark as Vygotsky predated him, and I am not even sure Piaget would agree.
#Constructivist mathematics is very interesting, as as described here on the Wikipedia, is very interesting because it probably spawned object-oriented programming (as we know computer science has its roots in math).  Math and physics have strong influences on psychology and sociology as in organizational psychology (Kurt Lewin)
#Missing from the above list are arts and architecture (which may be appropriate, but seem off topic as everything left is knowledge-based or Science--which is constructed knowledge.
#Constructivism is an accepted model for the current Information Society (the Internet), and especially for Wikis, yet no page exists for this--it can be initiated here. 
The point I am trying to make, is that this page, and the disambuigation page are virtually the same, in fact, this should probably be the disambigutation page.  At very least it needs to be a hub, and the arcane nature epistemology with its roots in ancient philosophy does not help current readers who cannot know what it means as it is rarely used.  (This makes it un-encyclopedic as encyclopedias are popular sources.)  The page needs a new name that better explains constructivism than epistemology can.
I personally consider myself a constructivst, but it was not until I studied family systems that I realized that constructivism is not about society as much as the person, either through learning or understanding psychology.  I formed an idea that the "community of knowledge" was the constructivist goal, but that is really in the direction of social construction.  In the end, one isn't going anywhere w/o the other: constructivism and constructionism are together a dimension that is yet to be named (I think).
Constructivism is, however, the epistemology of the Internet (and hence the current Information Society).  Also, it is one half of the family systems picture, and it logically extends that it is important to society's picture (sociology).  The other half, social construction is more about the formation of "reality" through communication -- it isn't real until we discuss it, and create a common conception, or, more accurately, a shared cognition.  (Cool, huh? Didn't you always wonder about reality?)
*Internet: Mitch Resnick
*Family and society: Gavriel Salomon
*Individual structure: Markus Peschl
*Education: Bonnie Shapiro
*Psychology: ??
All these writers are exceedingly current, and quite interesting to read, and I think they have all we need.  I am not saying to ignore Vygotski by any means, but I believe we need to look through the current lens.  This field, more than any other, is multidisciplinary.  For one thing, Peschl marries the psychodynamicists with the humanistics, Freud with Rogers, by showing the classic "unconscious" as the humanistic "frame of reference."  What I think is barely mentioned, is that the construction of the "frame of reference" with an epistemology is key to psychological well-being: happiness.  This I got from family systems and Bonnie Shapiro's What Children Bring to Light.
There is one item that is often ignored (but not by Resnick): the "artifact."  This the thing we focus on in constructivism; what we construct.  In economics, it is a product, but in the current economy it is not our product; it is the corporation's.  (Think of this in terms of socialism and globalism.)  Instead, we have semi-artifacts such as sports and family activities.  I imagine cars and houses are artifacts we focus on, but others focus on them for us; I have heard referred to as a form of mediation.  If the artifact is essential to psychological construction (along with emotional interrelation which is also scarce), then we have a good picture of why "craziness" is increasing substantially year after year. 
There are direct extensions to engineering, such as cybernetics that Bateson of the Mental Health Institute passed along to the Milan school.  This mirrors Bandura's efficacy research with physics-like Kurt Lewin.  As part of the self-constructs, efficacy is very important, yet is rarely differentiated from esteem.
I think that it is only appropriate that the constructivist page should faithfully imitate itself to create a valid social internet structure.  It really is not that tough to understand.  It has familiar humanistic (which is North American)  Existential (Europe) flavors to it (and I cannot help but think that there are Asian equivalents), the modeling can be done on a single piece of paper (see below).  --John Bessa (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project plan to save Constructivism on the Wikipedia 

message: Epistemology, from the WP: "the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge."  I think that philosophy is something to avoid in the context of Science, so let's say that it is the  which is, in fact, a sort of redundancy to constructivists, as study is in of itself the construction of knowledge.  Constructivsm is the epistemology that is not didactic, or perhaps didactic is the epistemology that is not constructivist.  This makes constructivism is the natural, non-forced, artifact- or object-oriented development of concept that extends through social construction to others and groups such as family and society.  To support the importance of the artifact, or object that is being constructed in parallel with the construction of knowledge, constructivist math literally requires an object, it is the first object orientation.
As we want scientific study rather than philosophy, then I am thinking that the proper name for this page is 
Constructivism (current epistemology).  As I have been attempting to show, constructivsm is multidisciplinary, and epistemology covers all uses of it as the study of the development of concepts.  The meanings are coinciding here and now, hence my idea for using the word current.
Input please!!
--John Bessa (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Epistemology

message: ====Maps====
Shared cognition is an important constructivist component, especially as we move along the continuum to construction as Resnick describes.  An important contribution just after WWI, was by Alfred Korzybski who described comprehension as a map of some land, but not the land itself. If it is a good map, he said, then it is as good as the land as an abstraction, but will not have all the information. In this analogy, distributed cognition is knowledge in the map that is shared; and I extend this by saying that much of the unknown information is actually the private, such as in private property. Some of this private information is shared in circular questioning, updating Korzybski's map.  His work may have been the basis for all current diagrams.
====Loops====
Sociology and social and family psychology work with communication loops, which were initially introduced as something negative by Bowen for families to be treated, but are now recognized as the social network, which is a matrix of all those who know each other, and of each other.  Single, double, and triple feedback loops are well described by Peschl, and I have extended them by using the perspective of the individual (which is what I think Peschl meant them for) beyond family to the societal perspective.<BR>
====Two and apparent and possibly profound problems====
What is important in this diagram is that the capital-civil loop of higher society (or civilization) is removed from the normal individual and social structure loops.  A good questions is "where is education?"  Two important changes result that  damage society because of the civil-capital loop to the side.  One is that critical inquiry / analysis is halted and there is nowhere to go with information about needs for improvement in society.  Alternate paths can be built, but they are maladaptive.  The other problem, which became apparent because of the diagram, is that there is no necessary artifact in the middle loops, only in the capital-civic loop.  The artifact is essential for human functioning, and it is not where it is supposed to be--it has been stolen.  But, by whom? This, I think, is the essential question humanity faces, and it is not a sociological or political question.  It is a psychological question, and it may be psychology itself, because, if you study psychology, you know that the study of the human mind (and families) is about maladaption, and, increasingly, genetic mutations (not good) -- there is no study of the normal human mind.
I put more writing in the comments section for the feedback loops diagram; it is SVG so it can be edited if you feel the urge.
====Institutionalized education====
Where is education in this picture? Constructivst education would be complete with the insertion of the Artifact into the center, but didactic education has to be parallel as a business, as it operates for profit (even if it has been socialized). As didactic information is supplied (with little "back talk"); this was mis-attunement to Carl Rogers as it was not the product of experience, and probably misinformation. So, another box has been placed above Knowledge for inserted knowledge that is separate from the collective experience.
On the topic of education, constructivists education has always hit a roadblock which is that the only possible use for it is in the capital-civic loop (for reasons I describe in the map comments at the link above).  What this means is that constructivist education is framed in the context of didactic education, which has no use for it.  Didactic education, which from this diagram is not in the constructivist loops, which implies that (cognition from the didactic perspective) is not in the loop and is different from knowledge (episodic memory) and frame of reference (working memory) and may, along with behavior, be some other kind of psychology such pathology.  There is another abstraction for the human system that comes from the pragmatists-phenomenoligists-humanistics, such as Carl Rogers and John Dewey that is purely based on experience and the construction of self, and might be the basis of a map that does not refer to cognition or behavior, as they are didactic and hence counter-thetical.  I refer to this in Wikiology in the Carl Rogers section.  
(It may be important to note that constructivist structure long-predates wikis, and that wikis don't necessarily use constructivist structure especially the Wikipedia, which attempts to preserve sequential (and hence unstructured) narrative.  It may also be that to be truly constructivist, constructivist wikis have to have some different name that "wiki," as wikis are named for an express airport shuttle for tourists to Hawaii. (Weird naming conventions are typical of the Web, especially for this website: wikimedia, mediawiki-- is it designed to confuse?  It probably is.  Many constructivist structures may be defined in the scope of the Internet's unique ill-logic, but this in not the fault of constructivism!  Constructivism has been suppressed, and, as typical of information control, sometimes maligned to some other meaning (but not too often).  John Bessa (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mapping and feedback loops

message: Where is education in this picture? Constructivst education would be complete with the insertion of the Artifact into the center, but didactic education has to be parallel as a business, as it operates for profit (even if it has been socialized). As didactic information is supplied (with little "back talk"); this was mis-attunement to Carl Rogers as it was not the product of experience, and probably misinformation. So, another box has been placed above Knowledge for inserted knowledge that is separate from the collective experience.
On the topic of education, constructivists education has always hit a roadblock which is that the only possible use for it is in the capital-civic loop (for reasons I describe in the map comments at the link above).  What this means is that constructivist education is framed in the context of didactic education, which has no use for it.  Didactic education, which from this diagram is not in the constructivist loops, which implies that (cognition from the didactic perspective) is not in the loop and is different from knowledge (episodic memory) and frame of reference (working memory) and may, along with behavior, be some other kind of psychology such pathology.  There is another abstraction for the human system that comes from the pragmatists-phenomenoligists-humanistics, such as Carl Rogers and John Dewey that is purely based on experience and the construction of self, and might be the basis of a map that does not refer to cognition or behavior, as they are didactic and hence counter-thetical.  I refer to this in Wikiology in the Carl Rogers section.  
(It may be important to note that constructivist structure long-predates wikis, and that wikis don't necessarily use constructivist structure especially the Wikipedia, which attempts to preserve sequential (and hence unstructured) narrative.  It may also be that to be truly constructivist, constructivist wikis have to have some different name that "wiki," as wikis are named for an express airport shuttle for tourists to Hawaii. (Weird naming conventions are typical of the Web, especially for this website: wikimedia, mediawiki-- is it designed to confuse?  It probably is.  Many constructivist structures may be defined in the scope of the Internet's unique ill-logic, but this in not the fault of constructivism!  Constructivism has been suppressed, and, as typical of information control, sometimes maligned to some other meaning (but not too often).  John Bessa (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Institutionalized education

message: I feel that there is an underlying struggle between classical thought, which is centered in Vienna and focuses on the unconscious, and classical modernism) and new thought, which is native to North America in too many ways to count, but has traces back to David Hume's 1700s Scotland with its concept of "God within us" that became scientific with the "self <-> experience" process that is the hallmark of humanistic thinking.  As I think about it, it may be premature to exclude one model or the other, as abstractions are just that, comprehensions based on what we know, which is constucTIVism.--John Bessa (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Struggle between East (Vienna as the doorway) and West (New World plus the Western Isles)

message: I moved the following here, because an article and a list are not the same thing.  This should be fleshed out, and complete sentences should be used:
:Also known as cognitive constructivism. Knowledge and reality is actively constructed by the individual, not passively received from the environment. This is the simplest form of constructivism.
-Seth Mahoney 22:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial constructivism 

message: I just thought Gilles Deleuze being listed as a proponent of social constructivism is misleading. Although he recognizes all categories (ie. gender, sexuality, delinquincy etc.) are historical, they are a combination of social and MATERIAL processes. It is fairly evident throughout difference and repetition and his work with guattari that he is a realist, although avoiding the problem of essentialism. Great reference on this is Manuel De Landa's Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. Sorry if I'm being anal :D.
:Alright: I just mistook your edit for a random removal. (Edit summaries help avoid that problem.) :) --Emufarmers(T/C) 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleuze 

message: I've added some new proponents that cannot be avoided in the study of this subject : G Vico, Gaston Bachelard, Jean Piaget, Herbert Simon, Edgar Morin, Gregory Bateson, Jean-Louis Le Moigne (see "Le Moigne's Defense of Constructivism" by E. Von Glasersfeld). Chrisdel 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proponents list 

message: I have huge difficulties putting "social constructivism", which is inherently inter-ego and not exactly revolutionary, and another approach applying the whole spectrum of systems theories to neuro sciences (e.g. Heinz von Foerster) and yet another approach based on meme-gene coevolution, evolutionary game theory, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the like.
I would like to put it this way:
- The social sciences approach
- The neuro science approach and the
- Dissipative system/ negative entropy/ sunspot event approach
While the topic is clearly the same, the categories are too different to be able to exchange meaningful memes. Especially the third approach is quite mathematical, opening up new channels of communication to physicists (e.g. Schrödinger, Erwin: "What is life?")and the like. The one problem I see is that equations not transferable to English language and word based social theories not transferable to mathematics cannot meaningfully interoperate. 
And the other is Constructivism essentially is so radical, people tend to view it as a nice set of words, like a metaphor. If you tell them, this is mathematically/ neuro-scientifically rigid, as far as rigidity exists anyway, then there is a totally different force confronting old memes. When Heinz von Foerster says "Realität? Wo haben Sie die denn?" (the meaning is close to: Reality? Can you show me some?) it really means: there is no absolute space (Einstein), there is no absolute time (Einstein), there is no absolute reality (Heisenberg) and there is nothing which is inherently you. And this is not a metaphor, this is hard science as far as we can believe that hard science exists. If you call this viewpoint constructivism, radical constructivism or anything else doesn't matter in so far. What matters is a statement derived by an empirical process, which is not the empirical process of social sciences as we know them.
Very short: Just split "social constructivism"/ "radical constructivism". Comments?
Hirsch.im.wald 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of interpretations of quantum theory, some of which lie on varying degrees of the usually conceived objective / subjective axis..  And Einstein actually left SPACETIME as a whole invarient even if the components or time and space are relative to an observers reference frame.  Einstein increasingly moved away from Machian experientialism about the philosophy of science to realism.  Heisenberg's statement can be one about the limitations of knowledge rather than of the lack of an absolute physical reality.  I do think that quantum theory in some sense seems to mesh intuitively with constructivistic viewpoints even the realist interpretations of quantum theory, but I think that mapping out these relations would require a lot careful research and thought.  And I think certainly views which attempt to go beyond or to undermine notions of neodarwinism in biology such as ecological-evolutionary-developmental systems theoretic approaches do share some common points with constructivist views.  Again mapping out in what sense this is the case would also be a lot of work. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Interesting about the education approach. But there are other approach of constructivism from scientific disciplines as physics through quantum mechanics, cybernetics and systemic, management through decision making etc. Chrisdel 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Radical Constructivism - Split the topic

message: How constructivism was constructed ? That's a question we can answer by looking at this word's history. I suggest that all the proponents list author's contributions be developped.  Chrisdel 12:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constructivist epistemology's History

message: I've reorganized the article with these main parts : 1 History, 2 Constructivism's concepts and ideas, 3 Constructivism and sciences, 4 Constructivist trends, 5 Quotations, 6 Bibliography, 7 See also, 8 External links. Chrisdel 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: I suggest to move the content of the paragraph "Social constructivist education" which is about "A social constructivist learning intervention" in the article Constructivism (learning theory). Indeed, this paragraph is too long for Constructivist epistemology. Chrisdel 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content of paragraph "Social constructivist education" in article [[Constructivism (learning theory)]] 

message: More information on these critics recently added would be useful, as they are unknown in wikipedia... Chrisdel 02:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics ? 

message: Constructivism lends itself to individual perception and should be considered as a
candidate system for proving existence theory. Consider the constructivist approach
to individual creation of thought processes and individual perception. The only means
for true verification and validation of existing objects can be found by individual
conclusiveness. As a simple example consider a perception test which presents a
picture which contains multiple representations. It has been shown that once an
individual chooses a concrete representation of the picture the individual has a
decreased capacity to see the picture as anything other than the first conclusion. 
Expanding on this test, consider proving a reality in a situation where one individual
asks another individual what they perceive regarding an object, but by the asking
of the question brings into question the verification process which is intended
to prove an existence because the asking individual has directed the asked
individual's perception in the same perceptive direction as the asker's perception
and in doing so the asked individual's validation has been tainted by the forcing of
consideration into a single projection. In that regard, when considering verification
of objects a position of least directive should be implemented. Therefore, the
efficiency in a constructivist model must be empowerment and delegation to the
empowered. When communication is concerned it is inevitable that perception
verification has the potential for directive narrowing, and with this in mind an accurate
verification system should allow for all individuals involved to develop their own
conclusions pre-communication in order to minimize perceptive narrowing. If a
significant number of self-directed individuals arrive at conclusions on the properties
and procedures of an object and collectively review the observations gathered
pre-communication then the accuracy of checks and balances will be maximized
and the pre-conception narrowing will be minimized. Therefore, priority is given to
self-awareness and self-conclusions and the subject matter of conversation will
not be prematurely narrowed. On a side note the constructivism model can be
considered as a sub-type of the indefinite monism model, but sub-typing should
not be considered as narrowing. Instead the sub-typing should be considered as
a branch to a tree with infinite branches within itself. Therefore, constructivism
should not be considered as a concrete implementation of indefinite monism, but
as an abstract tree branching off of an abstract tree. The constructivism branch of
indefinite monism differs from its super-type in that awareness is an all
encompassing understanding of reality, but it is extremely vague in its definition
such that indefinite monism is not specific about what it defines whereas
constructivism considers the connections between awareness and builds a
foundation for explanation of plural awareness by considering awareness in terms
of perceptions and conclusions. In other words, indefinite monism can be thought
of as defining reality as awareness, and constructivism extends that model to
explain what individuals are aware of as a cohesive system of foundations and
conclusions. The constructivism model gains leverage from other models of ontology
by individual construction. Considering a reality through subjective constructivism
gathers insights not only in the objectivity of the state of an object, but also in the
procedure to arrive at the objective state. Some philosophies consider a realm
which exists outside of space and time, and individual constructivism allows
observation of the processes each unique subjective individual implements to arrive
at conclusions about these objects even going as far as to consider observation
of the observation process without directive narrowing although it doesn't provide
proof of existence of such a realm it does provide a sufficient procedural model
to view reality not only as state objects, but also as procedure objects. In other
words, decomposition of a state objects existence can be considered using time
and space whereas decomposition of a procedure object is too complex to observe
as a snapshot of space in time because perception allows an individual to view a
tangible object as a visual representation in the form of a snapshot. However,
perception can't condense a procedural object into a single sense such as vision
or hearing or feeling. It is not rational for an individual to state that all of the reasons
involved in conception of a procedure have been traced to a number of precedents
because in order for the individual to do so the individual would have to consider
and trace down the reasons of all things which have passed to bring the individual
to the procedure which is to be considered for preface, and belief in external objects
must state that not everything which an individual perceives is consciously
recognized. The proof can be considered by the different perceptions relayed by
multiple individual all viewing the same state object. If an individual is incapable of
relaying a similar perception then it is not necessarily true that the individual didn't
see the similarity, but that the individual's awareness had an inability to recognize
and/or relay the perception which should not infer that the individual will not have
the ability to recognize and/or relay the perception at a future time(such as the sudden
clicking of a previously observed exercise which is not immediately understood).
Proximity of development can be considered in the verification and awareness of
existing realities in such a way that an individual builds their own system for belief
based on their body of knowledge. For example, surveying individuals living in medieval
times about jets would probably have resulted in disbelief of the reality of stepping
into an inanimate object and lifting off into the sky as a mode of transportation
because in that time frame such travel was outside of their proximity for reality.
Furthermore, the invention of the original airplanes happening at the time it did
shouldn't be thought to be a coincidence, but rather as a result of proximity of
development for building an airplane. Therefore, certain preconditions must be
satisfied in order for the conception of new realities, and a period of time must
also pass for acceptance of the new realities to circulate into an objective reality.
Intuition can also be explained within the constructivism model using the proximity
of development. An individual can observe a situation and draw conclusions which
can't be explained as mere coincidence and some of the conclusions might be
logically explained as coming to be by consideration of conditions which are just
beyond the bounds of the proximity of the individual such that the individual might
not have a stable thorough understanding for the conditions that were encountered,
but might still have the capacity to derive meaningful conclusions from those intuitions.
Constructivism allows meaning to be observed in terms of awareness and verified
using subjectivity and standardized using explanations based on thorough verifications
of perceptions. Verifications should not be constricted simply to reinforcement of
truths. Two major verification systems can be realized through the principles of
assimilation and accommodation. Verification regarding assimilation fits with the
model of reinforcing truths such that if an individual verifies a truth through
reinforcement perceptions then the object of the truth might be worth assimilating.
If the truth is not properly reinforced then an individual might delay assimilation due
to the possibility of fallacy. Verification regarding accommodation contrasts the
reinforcement of truth on grounds of redundancy. If the current state of
conclusiveness regarding an object satisfies the truth of the object then there
is no premise for construction to accommodate the truth of the object(because it
is already thought to be true). Therefore, accommodation verification attempts
to disprove the truth in order to make apparent the inadequacy of the current state
of conclusiveness which gives rise to the need for accommodation to stabilize a
comprehensive state of truth. For example, concerning self-improvement an individual
might approach another individual for advice from three abstract stances: expecting
verification of the current conceptualization as a proper assimilation, expecting
contra-verification of the current conceptualization as an inadequate assimilation
which requires accommodation, without expectation in hope of establishing a
conceptualization which doesn't require excessive accommodation. Generally
speaking, discussion leading to agreement gives rise to reinforcement of
assimilation and discussion leading to disagreement gives rise to reinforcement
of accommodation. 
Proximity of development is regarding the zone of proximal development established by Vygotsky.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Openprogramming (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to do additional research into the use of the "enter" key as a means of inserting paragraph breaks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.28.107 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontology and Constructivism as a System of Verification 

message: I've removed the following from the Criticisms section: 
 If that is the case, however, then why can't it be true at the level of the individual? Why can't there be incommensurability between individuals within the one society? Constructivism's reply would have to be that concepts are developed in a commonly experienced social context, so this could not occur. This claim, however, cannot be sustained because it is entirely possible that each individual's own personal experience of socially constructed meanings is entirely different from every other person's. If this were true, then it is entirely possible that each individual's own conception of supposedly common meanings would only be their own subjective experiences. And ironically, if there really were incommensurable worldviews held by each individual - that is, there were absolutely no meanings held in common - then there would be no way any individual could know this because there would be no "meta-language" by which this could be expressed.
I also placed an Original Research/WP:V template at the head of the article. Although the article lead is reasonably sourced, the rest of the article plainly is not reasonably sourced to date. I also moved some resources provided by an anon IP contributor into the "Further reading" section, since none of the authors have WP articles such that they can reasonably go into "See also". ... Kenosis (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly inserted "Criticisms" section

message: It is written in the article: "Critics then appeal to the following axiom of logic: "if a proposition is both true and not-true, then it is not-true"; thus, on social constructivism's own lights, it is false."  This is not an axiom of logic.  Instead, if a proposition is both true and not-true then the theory within which you are operating is inconsistent.  128.223.96.216 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: In this meaning, Constructivism is seen as a replacement for Essentialism and this in relation to national and historical evolution of units.
Essentialism (in this meaning) is an outdated concept that states that the modern nations were inevitable and that any sensation or feeling of Nationalism or Identification with a political/geographical unit is the result of the idea of the state. Thus they feel that the state is formed, and that nationalist feelings and identification with the state is a consequence of this (First you had to have America/France before you could have Americans/French).
Constructivism is brought up as a new, better concept that states you first need to cultivate the sensation of being part of it. If people feel like a unit, the unit will become distinct. Thus, you get people who identify themselves as part of a group, and from that, a nation will emerge (over time/eventually). Thus, this theory states that people will feel part of an American/French group (as having the identity tag of being American/French) and the actual Nation state will follow as a result of this.
- Essentialism states that the American Nation predates the moment it's citizens start thinking of themselves as American. That before the Nation existed, they considered themselves British.
- Constructivism states that they were part of the British Empire but considered themselves more American then British already. That the feeling of being different from the British led to them feeling unhappy with being part of the British Empire and led to the Revolution and eventually the formation of the American Nation.
--91.181.60.45 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructivism - Essentialism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Constructivist epistemology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111013254/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/10720537.html to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/10720537.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified