Talk:Radical constructivism

Philosophy: Epistemology / Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science

Merge

I'd like to suggest that the content here be moved to social constructionism. It seems better served as a redirect to that article and the content as a section in that article. -Seth Mahoney 07:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radical constructivism really has not much to do with social constructivism. In the radical approach even the existence of social systems ultimately is not verifiable. I redirect to Constructivist epistemology, because that's at least more general, including both radical and social constructivism. The article there is not exactly perfect, but it's much better than it used to be, while the paragraph on radical constructivism in social constructionism is absolutely sub-standard. It's simply mixing up ontology (something completely inexistent in radical constructivism) with epistemology and method.

Radical constructivism doesn't show or suppose anything at all. That seems pretty hard to get for many people, but then why should it? It could be described as an approach or a methodology or even better a self-reflexive, scepticist attitude.Hirsch.im.wald 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerging

I have undone this merge, as the article it pointed to has changed and is now specifically about the philosophy of science. As this is only part of what RC is about, it is difficult to develop RC as a section within that article. I have made a start to a standalone article which can be developed further.Hinterlander1 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]