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.
-
-
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.
-
Forgive the thread-bomb, but have either of you read "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology"? It goes a long way in explaining the disagreement you are having. https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf …
End of conversation
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.