We don't as far as I can tell! It is a semantic issue. I'd really rather not conflate social constructivism (currently understood as making shit up) with accepting the imperfect and provisional nature of knowledge because the former is the problem and the latter the solution.
-
-
I don't mind being tagged but I've stopped responding to lunatics. But social constructivism, particularly in relation to knowledge, is a very serious philosophical, and sociological tradition. The fact people misuse it shouldn't lead us to ignore its insights.
-
I'm less interested in the serious philosophical & sociological tradition than what is happening right now in the world in relation to social constructivism, particularly blank-slatism. We're just not talking about the same things.
-
Well these ideas are coming from somewhere. So the point, if we want to get things right, is not to engage in a blanket rejection. That's as foolhardy as them saying science is a deterministic form of religion.
-
I absolutely don't reject the idea that knowledge is provisional and that knowledge is obtained through methods invented by humans and conveyed through language. I just don't call that 'social constructivism.' That's not what is meant in the conversations I'm having.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.