I find von Glasersfeld confusing and, I think, confused on these
distinctions. He has stated that constructivists "deliberately and
consequentially avoid saying anything about ontology, let alone making any
ontological commitments." But he also says that "Please note that
constructivism does not deny an outside world; it merely agrees with
skeptics and holds that the only world we can know is the world of our
experience." But "not deny[ing] an outside world" is talking about
ontology; arguably it is making an ontological commitment, albeit a weak
one. If so, his ontological position is weaker than Kant's, despite the
fact that von G contrasts it with idealism and claims it is aligned with
Kant. Kant (to add to the complexity) was both an 'empirical realist' and
a 'transcendental idealist,' who insisted that we must logically infer that
a real world exists, even though we cannot experience it directly and so
can make no positive assertions about its character.
Can you take a shot at helping me get clearer on how you locate
constructivism both epistemologically and ontologically?
Martin
p.s. Diane -- I appreciate the question you've posed me and am currently
musing... will get back to you.
================
Martin Packer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh PA 15282
(412) 396-4852
fax: (412) 396-5197
packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer/packer.html