I challenge Hacking’s characterization of Kuhn’s constructionism. I argue that Kuhn does not believe that nature has no joints. Rather, Kuhn believes there is no unique correct way to cut nature into kinds. I also argue that Kuhn is not an externalist. He believes that disputes in science are resolved on the basis of a consideration of the epistemic merits of the theories. Subjective factors merely ensure that competing theories are developed, and the strengths and weaknesses of the theories are exposed. Epistemic considerations are what ultimately lead to consensus in a research community.

What is the nature of human learning, and what insights can be gained from understanding early learning in infants and young children? This is an important question for understanding the human mind, the origins of knowledge, scientific reasoning, and how to best structure our educational environment. In this article, we argue for a new approach to cognitive development: rational constructivism. This view characterizes the child as a rational constructive learner, and it sees early learning as rational, statistical, and inferential. Empirical evidence for this approach has been accumulating rapidly, and a set of domain-general statistical and inferential mechanisms have been uncovered to explain why infants and young children learn so fast and so well.

Key words: rational constructivism, learning mechanisms, cognitive development

How can a teacher apply ideas from the constructivist learning model to classroom teaching? This article reviews the main ideas of the constructivist learning theory as well as the epistemological shift in the view of scientific knowledge, and suggests ways of applying these ideas to science teaching. Yager presents a teaching model developed by the National Center for Improving Science Education that is based on the constructivist learning model and includes four aspects: invitation, exploration, proposed explanation and solution, and taking action. Specific strategies that science teachers can use to help students construct their own meaning are listed. In addition, the article contains a self-check instrument that can be used to determine the extent to which a teacher is basing his or her practice on constructivist learning theory. Yager concludes with the recommendation that this model should also be used in preparing new teachers.

This paper discusses different approaches incognitive science and artificial intelligence research from the perspective of radical constructivism, addressing especially their relation to the biologically based theories ofvon Uexküll, Piaget as well as Maturana and Varela. In particular recent work in ‘New AI’ and adaptive robotics on situated and embodied intelligence is examined, and we discuss in detail the role of constructive processes as the basis of situatedness in both robots and living organisms.

Key words: adaptive robotics, artificial intelligence, embodied cognition, radical constructivism, situatedness

Embodiment has become an important concept in many areas of cognitive science. There are, however, very different notions of exactly what embodiment is and what kind of body is required for what type of embodied cognition. Hence, while many nowadays would agree that humans are embodied cognizers, there is much less agreement on what kind of artifact could be considered embodied. This paper identifies and contrasts six different notions of embodiment which can roughly be characterized as (1) structural coupling between agent and environment, (2) historical embodiment as the result of a history of struct ural coupling, (3) physical embodiment, (4) organismoid embodiment, i.e. organism- like bodily form (e.g., humanoid robots), (5) organismic embodiment of autopoietic, living systems, and (6) social embodiment.