Volume 8 · Number 1 · Pages 15–18

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Author’s Response: What Constructivism Does not Say

Armin Scholl

Download the full text in
PDF (112 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Upshot: Egner’s suggestion that a theory of observation should be developed towards a more abstract concept in order to apply it to any autopoietic system is plausible from the point of a general systems theory. However, this strategy of theorizing is not suited to solving epistemological problems in particular because such a broad concept fails to specify constructivism as a strictly observer-related philosophy. Nassehi’s search for a third way between constructivism and realism, in turn, presumes a too narrow and biased concept of constructivism and is therefore not suited to solving the epistemological problem for which constructivism has been developed.

Key words: Systems theory, epistemology, radical constructivism, social systems


Scholl A. (2012) Author’s response: What constructivism does not say. Constructivist Foundations 8(1): 15–18. http://constructivist.info/8/1/015

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

Similar articles

Scholl A. (2012) Between Realism and Constructivism? Luhmann’s Ambivalent Epistemological Standpoint

Scholl A. (2013) Exploring Luhmann’s Constructivism. Review of “Ontologien der Moderne” edited by René John et al. and of “Luhmann Handbuch” edited by Oliver Jahraus et al.

Müller K. H. (2011) The Two Epistemologies of Ernst von Glasersfeld

Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) Second-Order Science of Interdisciplinary Research: A Polyocular Framework for Wicked Problems

Troadec B. (2007) Constructivism, Culture, and Cognitive Development: What Kind of Schemes for a Cultural Psychologist?

Comments: 0

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