Quale A. (2007) Arguments that Miss the Mark. Constructivist Foundations 3(1): 15. https://cepa.info/51
Arguments that Miss the Mark.
Constructivist Foundations 3(1): 15.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/51
Open peer commentary on the target article “Arguments Opposing the Radicalism of Radical Constructivism” by Gernot Saalmann. First paragraph: The article argues that radical constructivism is flawed, and should be rejected in favour of an alternative version of constructivism: critical realism. It is my aim here to demonstrate that the arguments do not hold, for at least two reasons: 1. They are directed against a mistaken conception of what radical constructivism is about. 2. They are essentially “criticisms from the outside”: i.e., radical constructivism is criticised for what it is not, and not for what it is.