On Dec 3, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> I have been puzzling again over the constructivism/constructionism
> distinction which has resurfaced here.
Mike's message inspired me to go looking for some resources online,
and I found a few goodies:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/constructivism.html
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/soc_construction.html
Ian Hacking also has a book where he tries to untangle some of these
issues. It's well worth the read for anyone trying to get straight
about constructivalationism. ;)
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/hackingi/scofwhat.htm
The lesson I get from the book is that it is counter-productive to
bandy about talk about "social construction" in a generalized way,
that there are a number of related but distinct ideas that go under
the banner of "social construction," and that one really ought to be
clear about how certain things are and aren't socially constructed,
rather than speak very broadly about it.
Hacking sometimes goes to far in trying to make things come out
neatly, but it is a good first step.
Best,
Matt
-- Matt Brown (mattbrown@ucsd.edu) | "The mind and the world jointly Philosophy Graduate Student | make up the mind and the world." Univ. of California San Diego | - Hilary Putnam Homepage: http://thm.askee.net |_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:18 PST