Advertisement

Constructivism

  • Alexander Riegler

Abstract

In one of his first papers, Thomas Kuhn (1959) addressed the “essential tension” implicit in scientific research, i.e., the contrast between convergent and divergent thinking. He considered both to be central to the advance of science. Convergent thinking is what scientists do in their daily “normal research projects,” where the “scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition” (ibid., p. 234). The convergent mode is “neither intended nor likely to produce fundamental discoveries or revolutionary changes in scientific theory” (ibid., p. 233). As he would describe in greater detail in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), this is because students are already discouraged from developing divergent-thinking abilities, partly because their education is based on textbooks, which “exhibit concrete problem solutions that the profession has come to accept as paradigms… Nothing could be better calculated to produce ‘mental sets’ or Einstellungen” (Kuhn, 1959, p. 229). Clearly, from this perspective, mental sets (or “mental inertia”) play an important role in paradigms as they prevent the normal scientist from gazing beyond the limits of her paradigm. Kuhn also emphasized the importance of convergent thinking as “no part of science progressed very far or very rapidly before this convergent education and correspondingly convergent normal practice became possible” (ibid., p. 237). However, Kuhn also recognized the divergent method because in order to assimilate new ­discoveries and theories “the scientist must usually rearrange the intellectual and manipulative equipment he has previously relied upon, discarding some elements of his prior belief” (ibid., p. 226).

Keywords

Divergent Thinking Radical Constructivism Autopoietic System Reality Construction Convergent Thinking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my gratitude to Marco Bettoni, Jeremy Burman and Armin Scholl for their helpful comments on a previous draft version of this article. Furthermore, I acknowledge the financial support from the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO).

References

  1. Bird, A. (2009). Thomas Kuhn. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/thomas-kuhn.
  2. Blackmore, J. T. (1972). Ernst Mach: His work, life, and influence. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  3. Riegler, A. & Bunnell, P. (eds.) (2011) The work of Humberto Maturana and its application across the sciences. Special Issue, Constructivist Foundations, 6(3) Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/3.
  4. Burman, J. T. (2007). Piaget no “remedy” for Kuhn, but the two should be read together: Comment on Tsou’s ‘Piaget vs. Kuhn on Scientific Progress’. Theory & Psychology, 17, 721–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burman, J. T. (2008). Experimenting in relation to Piaget: Education is a chaperoned process of adaptation. Perspectives on Science, 16(2), 160–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diettrich, O. (2001). A physical approach to the construction of cognition and to cognitive evolution. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 273–341. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/pdf/diettrich.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Making a mind versus modeling the brain: Artificial intelligence back at a branch-point. Artificial Intelligence, 117, 309–33.Google Scholar
  8. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(270), 1–112 (German original published in 1935).Google Scholar
  9. Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  10. Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Basel: Benno Swabe (English translation: Fleck, L. (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact (Edited by T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton). Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  11. Foerster, H. von (2003a). On constructing a reality. In H. von Foerster, Understanding understanding (pp. 211–228) New York: Springer. (Originally published in F. E. Preiser (Ed.) (1973) Environmental design research, Vol. 2. Stroudberg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, pp. 35–46).Google Scholar
  12. Foerster, H. von (2003b). Objects: Tokens for (eigen-) behaviors. In H. von Foerster, Understanding understanding (pp. 261–271) New York: Springer. (Originally published in 1976).Google Scholar
  13. Froese, T., Gould, C., & Barrett, A. (2011). Re-viewing from within: A commentary on first- and second-person methods in the science of consciousness. Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 254–269. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/2/254.froese). Google Scholar
  14. Glasersfeld, E. von (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology. In C. D. Smock & E. von Glasersfeld (Eds.) Epistemology and education (pp. 1–24) Athens: Follow Through Publications. (Reprinted in: Glasersfeld, E. von (2007) Key works in radical constructivism (edited by Marie Larochelle). Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 73–87. (Page numbers in the text refer to the reprint). Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/034).
  15. Glasersfeld, E. von (1982). An interpretation of Piaget’s constructivism. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 36(4): 612–635. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/077.
  16. Glasersfeld, E. von (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? Contributions to constructivism. (pp. 17–40) New York: Norton. (Originally publish in German in 1981. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/070.1).
  17. Glasersfeld, E. von (1991a). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In G. J. Klir (Ed.) Facets of system science. (pp. 229–238) New York: Plenum. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/127.
  18. Glasersfeld, E. von (1991b). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.) Research and reflexivity (Inquiries into social construction) (pp. 12–29). London: Sage. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/132.
  19. Glasersfeld (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glasersfeld, E. von (1997). Fiktion und Realität aus der Perspektive des radikalen Konstruktivismus. In E. von Glasersfeld, Wege des Wissens (pp. 45–61). Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/133.
  21. Glasersfeld, E. von (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science 6 (1–3): 31–43. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/pdf/glasersfeld.pdf.
  22. Glasersfeld, E. von (2007). Aspects of constructivism. Vico, Berkeley, Piaget. In von E. Glasersfeld (Ed.), Key works in radical constructivism (pp. 91–99). Rotterdam: Sense. (Originally published in Italian as: Glasersfeld, E. von (1992) Aspetti del costruttivismo: Vico, Berkeley, Piaget. In M. Ceruti (Ed.) Evoluzione e conoscenza (pp. 421–432). Bergamo: Lubrina. Available at: http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/139.2).
  23. Glasersfeld, E. von (2010). Partial memories: Sketches from an improbable life. London: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  25. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol 1). New York: Holt. (Reprinted in 1950 by Dover, New York).Google Scholar
  26. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kenny V. (2010). Exile on mainstream. Constructivism in psychotherapy and suggestions from a Kellian perspective. Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 65–76. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1/065.kenny.
  28. Kitchener, R. F. (1985). Genetic epistemology, history of science and genetic psychology. Synthese, 65, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitchener, R. F. (1987). Genetic epistemology, equilibration and the rationality of scientific change. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 18(3), 339–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, T.S. (1959). The essential tension. Tradition and innovation in scientific research. In C.W. Taylor (Ed.) The third (1959) University of Utah research conference on the identification of scientific talent (pp. 162–174). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. (Reprinted in: Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension (pp. 225–239). Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  31. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road since Structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview (Edited by J. Conant & J. Haugeland). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Llinás, R. R. (2001). I of the vortex. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lorenz, K. (1941). Kant’s Lehre vom Apriorischen im Lichte gegenwärtiger Biologie. Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie 15: 94–125. English translation: Lorenz, K. (1982). Kant’s doctrine of the a priori in the light of contemporary biology. In H. C. Plotkin (Ed.), Learning, development and culture (pp. 121–143). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 54/248.Google Scholar
  36. Mach, E. (1959). The analysis of sensations (3rd Ed.) (C. M. Williams & S. Waterlow, Trans.). New York: Dover Edition. (The German first edition was published in 1886).Google Scholar
  37. Mach, E. (1960). The science of mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development (6th ed.). Chicago: Open Court. (Originally published as: Mach E. (1912) Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, historisch-kritisch dargestellt (7th ed.). Leipzig: Brockhaus).Google Scholar
  38. Mach, E. (1970). The guiding principles of my scientific theory of knowledge and its reception by my contemporaries. In S. Toulmin (Ed.) Physical reality (pp. 44–53). New York: Harper. (German original published in 1910).Google Scholar
  39. Mach, E. (1992). Ernst Mach. In J. Blackmore (Ed.) Ernst Mach – A deeper look. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Originally published in 1913).Google Scholar
  40. Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.) Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press. Available at http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html.
  41. Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of the living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Sciences (Vol. 42). Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
  42. Mitterer, J. (1994). Das Jenseits der Philosophie. Vienna: Edition Passagen.Google Scholar
  43. Müller, K. H. (2010). The radical constructivist movement and its network formations. Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 31–39. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1/031.mueller.
  44. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  45. Oberheim, E. & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2009). The incommensurability of scientific theories. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/.
  46. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1929). La rebelión de las masas. Madrid: Revista de Occidente. (English translation: Ortega y Gasset, J. (1994). The revolt of the masses. New York: W. W. Norton).Google Scholar
  47. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Ballantine. (French original published as: Piaget J. (1937). La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Délachaux & Niestlé).Google Scholar
  48. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes (B. Walsh Trans.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (Originally published in 1967).Google Scholar
  50. Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. 5th revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  52. Riegler, A. (1994). Constructivist artificial life: The constructivist-anticipatory principle and functional coupling. In J. Hopf (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th German conference on artificial intelligence (KI-94). Workshop on genetic algorithms within the framework of evolutionary computation. (pp. 73–83). Max-Planck-Institute Report No. MPI-I-94–241.Google Scholar
  53. Riegler, A. (2001a). The cognitive ratchet. The ratchet effect as a fundamental principle in evolution and cognition. Cybernetics and Systems, 32, 411–427. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/14.
  54. Riegler, A. (2001b). Towards a radical constructivist understanding of science. Foundations of Science, special issue on “The impact of radical constructivism on science”, 6(1–3), 1–30. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/20.
  55. Riegler, A. (2005a). Constructive memory. Kybernetes, 34(1/2), 89–104. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/39.Google Scholar
  56. Riegler, A. (2005b). Like cats and dogs: Radical constructivism and evolutionary epistemology. In: Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture: A non-adaptationist, systems theoretical approach (pp. 47–65). Dordrecht: Springer. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/36.
  57. Riegler, A. (2006). Is a closed-loop discovery system feasible? In L. Magnani (Ed.), Computing and philosophy (pp. 141–149). Pavia: Associated International Academic Publishers. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/41.
  58. Riegler, A. (2007). The radical constructivist dynamics of cognition. In: B. Wallace (Ed.) The mind, the body and the world: Psychology after cognitivism? (pp. 91–115). London: Imprint. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/44.
  59. Riegler, A. & Bunnell, P. (eds.) (2011) The work of Humberto Maturana and its application across the sciences. Special Issue, Constructivist Foundations, 6 (3). Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/3.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, S. J. (1987). Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt, S. J. (1993). Zur Ideengeschichte des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. In E. Florey & O. Breidbach (Eds.), Das Gehirn – Organ der Seele? Zur Ideengeschichte der Neurobiologie (pp. 327–349). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  62. Scholl, A. (2010). Radical constructivism in communication science. Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 51–57. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1/051.scholl.Google Scholar
  63. Sillito, A. M., & Jones, H. E. (2002). Corticothalamic interactions in the transfer of visual information. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B Biological Sciences, 357, 1739–1752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simcock, G., & Hayne, H. (2002). Breaking the barrier? Children fail to translate their preverbal memories into language. Psychological Science, 13(3), 225–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Stegmüller, W. (1971). Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie, Band II. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
  67. Tsou, J. Y. (2006). Genetic epistemology and Piaget’s philosophy of science. Piaget vs. Kuhn on scientific progress. Theory & Psychology, 16, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Varela, F. J. (1988). Cognitive science: A cartography of current ideas. Paris: CREA, Ecole Polytechnique. Republished in French as: Varela, F. J. (1989) Connaître. Les sciences cognitives. Tendances et perspectives. Paris: Seuil. In German: F. J. Varela (1990) Kognitionwissenschaft – Kognitionstechnik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  69. Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349.Google Scholar
  70. Watzlawick, P. (ed.) The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? Contributions to constructivism. New York: W. W. Norton. Google Scholar
  71. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  72. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science and Leo Apostel Center for Interdisciplinary StudiesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations