## AbstractContext: It is often suggested that the methodology of the programme of Constructive Reverse Mathematics (CRM) can be sufficiently clarified by a thorough understanding of Brouwer’s intuitionism, Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and classical Reverse Mathematics. In this paper, the correctness of this suggestion is questioned. Method: We consider the notion of a mathematical programme in order to compare these schools of mathematics in respect of their methodologies. Results: Brouwer’s intuitionism, Bishop’s constructive mathematics, and classical Reverse Mathematics are historical influences upon the origin and development of CRM, but do not give a full “methodological explanation” for it. Implications: Discussion on the methodological issues concerning CRM is needed. Constructivist content: It is shown that the characterisation and comparison of varieties of constructive mathematics should include methodological aspects (as understood from their practices). Key words: constructive mathematics, reverse mathematics, mathematical programme, methodology ## CitationLoeb I. (2012) Questioning Constructive Reverse Mathematics. Constructivist Foundations 7(2): 131–140. Available at http://constructivist.info/7/2/131.loeb Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS) ## Similar articlesUmpleby S. A. (2016) Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science Bettoni M. C. (2011) Constructing a Beginning in 1985 Bettoni M. C. (2007) The Yerkish Language: From Operational Methodology to Chimpanzee Communication | ||