Volume 6 · Number 1 · Pages 77–83

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Why Radical Constructivism Has not Become a Paradigm

Volker Gadenne

Download the full text in
PDF (254 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Problem: The paper investigates some reasons why RC has not become a mainstream endeavor. Method: The central assumptions of RC are summarized. Analysis is made of how each of these assumptions corresponds to other views, especially to intuitive beliefs that are widely accepted. Is RC consistent with these beliefs, supported by them, or incompatible with them? Results: The construction hypothesis is supported by the results of cognitive science and neurophysiology. However, the closed-system hypothesis and antirealism are in conflict with deeply rooted convictions of most people. Some ethical and educational aspects claimed by RC are generally accepted but they are not specifically implications of RC. Implications: In the near future, RC will probably not become the leading paradigm or a mainstream endeavor in the sciences or in philosophy.

Key words: closed-system hypothesis, fallibilism, intentionality, pluralism, realism, tolerance


Gadenne V. (2010) Why radical constructivism has not become a paradigm. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 77–83. http://constructivist.info/6/1/077

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Gadenne V. (2008) The Construction of Realism

Slezak P. (2010) Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite

Dykstra Jr. D. (2010) What Can We Learn from the Misunderstandings of Radical Constructivism? Commentary on Slezak’s “Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite”

Leydesdorff L. (2012) Radical Constructivism and Radical Constructedness: Luhmann’s Sociology of Semantics, Organizations, and Self-Organization

Vörös S. & Riegler A. (2017) A Plea for not Watering Down the Unseemly: Reconsidering Francisco Varela’s Contribution to Science


Albert H. (1968) Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen. English translation: Albert H. (1985) Treatise on critical reason. Princeton University Press, Prince-ton NJ. << Google Scholar

Albert H. (1987) Kritik der reinen Erkenntnislehre. Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen. << Google Scholar

Devitt M. (1991) Realism and truth. University Press, Princeton. << Google Scholar

Dobzhansky T. (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129. << Google Scholar

Foerster H. von (1973) On constructing a reality. In: Preiser F. E. (ed.) Environmental design research, Vol. 2. Dowdon, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudberg: 35–46. Reprinted in: Foerster H. von (2003) Understanding understanding. Springer, New York: 211–228. << Google Scholar

Gadenne V. (2008) The construction of realism. Constructivist Foundations 3(3): 153–159. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/3/153.gadenne

Gergen K. (1999) An invitation to social construction. Sage, London. << Google Scholar

Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press, London. << Google Scholar

Goodman N. (1978) Ways of worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. << Google Scholar

Grossmann R. (1990) The fourth way: A theory of knowledge. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. << Google Scholar

Kenny V. (2007) Distinguishing Ernst von Glasersfeld’s “radical constructivism” from Humberto Maturana’s “radical realism.” Constructivist Foundations 2(2–3): 58–64. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/2/2–3/058.kenny

Kim J. (1996) Philosophy of mind. Westview Press, Boulder. << Google Scholar

Kuhn T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University Press, Chicago. << Google Scholar

Lachman R., Lachman J. L. & Butterfield E. C. (1979) Cognitive psychology and information processing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ. << Google Scholar

Llinás R. R. (2001) I of the vortex. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. << Google Scholar

Matthews M. R. (2000) Appraising Constructivism in science and mathematic education. In: Phillips D. C. (ed.) Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: 161–193. << Google Scholar

Maturana H. & Varela F. (1979) Autopoiesis and cognition. Reidel, Boston. << Google Scholar

Maturana H. & Varela F. (1987) The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. New Science Library, Boston. << Google Scholar

Musgrave A. (1999) Essays on realism and rationalism, Rodopi, Amsterdam. << Google Scholar

Nüse R., Groeben N., Freitag B. & Schreier M. (1991) Über die Erfindung/en des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim. << Google Scholar

Neisser U. (1967) Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. << Google Scholar

Neisser U. (1976) Cognition and reality. Freeman, San Francisco. << Google Scholar

Phillips D. C. (ed.) (2000) Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago. << Google Scholar

Popper K. (1945) The open society and its enemies, Vol. 2. The high tide of prophecy. Routledge, London. << Google Scholar

Popper K. (1972) Objective knowledge. Clarendon Press, Oxford. << Google Scholar

Quale A. (2007) Radical constructivism, and the sin of relativism. Science & Education 16: 231–266. << Google Scholar

Riegler A. (2005) Editorial: The constructivist challenge. Constructivist Foundations 1(1): 1–8. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/1/1/001.riegler

Riegler A. (2007) Is Glasersfeld’s constructivism a dangerous intellectual tendency? In: Glanville R. & Riegler A. (eds.) The importance of being Ernst. Echoraum, Vienna: 263–275. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/46

Roth G. (1986) Selbstorganisation – Selbsterhaltung – Selbstreferentialität: Prinzipien der Organisation der Lebewesen und ihre Folgen für die Beziehung zwischen Organismus und Umwelt. In: Dress A., Hendrichs H. & Küppers G. (eds.) Selbstorganisation. Piper, München: 149–180. << Google Scholar

Searle J. (1983) Intentionality. University Press, Cambridge. << Google Scholar

Searle J. (1995) The construction of social reality. Free Press, 
New York. << Google Scholar

Vollmer G. (1981) Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie. Hirzel, Stuttgart. << Google Scholar

Vollmer G. (2005) How is it that we can know this world? New arguments in evolutionary epistemology. In: Hösle V. & Illies C. (eds.) Darwinism and philosophy. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame IN: 259–274. << Google Scholar

Wendel H. J. (1990) Moderner Relativismus. Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen. << Google Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.