Context: Johnson argues that because radical constructivism requires social constraints and therefore ontological assumptions, it is no different from constructive realism, which is comparatively mainstream. Results: While the distinction between these approaches appears slim, our concepts are not independent of us, and may need to change in spite of established traditions. Implications: Perhaps radical constructivism cannot be mainstream because it is essentially concerned with epistemological origins of concepts and consequently is not practical enough for the received consensus.
Key words: epiphany, reality, social, testimony
Gash H. (2010) Realities in Radical Constructivism. Commentary on Johnson’s “Footprints in the Sand”. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 100–101. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1/100.gash