David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Science 6 (1-3):99-124 (2001)
This article addresses the issue of objectivism vs constructivism in two areas,biology and cognitive science, which areintermediate between the natural sciences suchas physics (where objectivism is dominant) andthe human and social sciences (whereconstructivism is widespread). The issues inbiology and in cognitive science are intimatelyrelated; in each of these twin areas, the objectivism vs constructivism issue isinterestingly and rather evenly balanced; as aresult, this issue engenders two contrastingparadigms, each of which has substantialspecific scientific content. The neo-Darwinianparadigm in biology is closely resonant withthe classical cognitivist paradigm in cognitivescience, and both of them are intrinsicallyobjectivist. The organismic paradigm inbiology, based on the concept of autopoiesis,is consonant with the paradigm of enaction incognitive science; the latter paradigms are bothprofoundly constructivist.In cognitive science, the objectivism vsconstructivism issue is internal to thescientific field itself and reflexivity isinescapable. At this level, strong ontologicalobjectivism is self-contradictory and thereforeuntenable. Radical constructivism isself-coherent; but it also rehabilitatesa weak form of objectivism as a pragmaticallyviable alternative. In conclusion, there is aneven-handed reciprocity between objectivistand constructivist perspectives. Finally, thearticle examines the consequences of thisconclusion for fields other than cognitivescience: biology; physics and the naturalsciences; and the human and social sciences.
|Keywords||autopoiesis cognitivism neo-darwinism objectivism organism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hans Jürgen Wendel (1992). Radikaler Konstruktivismus Und Konstruktionismus. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (2):323 - 352.
A. Scholl (2010). Radical Constructivism in Communication Science. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):51-57.
A. Donk (2011). All Quiet on the Constructivism Front – Or is There a Substantial Contribution of Non-Dualistic Approaches for Communication Science? Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):27-29.
Helmut Schwegler (2001). Physics Develops Unaffected by Constructivism. Foundations of Science 6 (4):241-253.
M. A. Boden (2010). Against Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):84-89.
K. McGee (2005). Enactive Cognitive Science. Part 1: History and Research Themes. Constructivist Foundations 1 (1):19--34.
Alexander Riegler & Andreas Quale (2010). Editorial: Can Radical Constructivism Become a Mainstream Endeavor? Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):1-5.
H. Gash (2011). Moving Forward From Radical or Social Constructivism to a Higher Level Synthesis. Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):20-21.
D. I. Dykstra (2010). Radical Constructivism Has an Answer – But This Answer Is Not an Easy One. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):22-30.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #107,862 of 1,100,913 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #177,300 of 1,100,913 )
How can I increase my downloads?