Response to ETM- "Bad Writing"

While Ed points out that eloquent, verbose language can certainly be "bad writing", I would also like to challenge the notion that one must have a good handle on the "rules of grammar" to be a good writer. I believe that language is created by humans; therefore, there is no wrong way to speak. There are many different dialects in the world, and speaking in professional jargon is really just another dialect, and it is no better or worse than slang, which is another dialect. Each human has a way of expressing him or herself through words. The rules of language are constantly changing and evolving. How can anybody police the way somebody else uses language? This is a kind of elitism, to assume that our way of using language is the best. However, I do realize that we need a basic common ground for grammar in order to understand one another. But there is a fine line (though I will admit I'm not entirely sure where that line is!) between enforcing a common ground and enforcing a specific dialect that one believes to be the "right" way of speaking.

This is a great post about language on one of my favorite blogs ever. It points out that each dialect (which includes all forms of slang, "spanglish", etc) has it's own grammar. This makes sense, because if a dialect didn't have it's own form of grammar, then nobody would understand it. However, people do understand different dialects, so why do we consider them to be less legitimate then ours? People often get irritated when people (who tend to be uneducated, poor, or both) use "bad grammar". But is there such a thing as bad grammar? Obviously this form of language has a grammar, because otherwise nobody would understand it.

References to an External World

I have wanted to write a post about radical constructivists' making references to the external world for a while now.

Jules: Jules, a radical constructivist, references his C- grade and Allison. If his reality is constructed, then why does it really matter if Allison gave him a C-? Why does the grade even exist in his reality? If, in his experience, he is an A+ student, then why is he letting this C- get to him? He is trying to convince Allison that he is right and she is wrong about her evaluation of him, which is contradictory to the beliefs of radical constructivism.

Von Glaserfeld: I found it a little humorous that in von Glaserfeld's "Introduction to Radical Constructivism", he lists references at the end. This seems contradictory to the principles of radical constructivism. Von Glaserfeld has not experienced what the people he cites have experienced; how does he know he is accurately referencing them? What if he completely misinterpreted what they wrote and is drawing an incorrect conclusion about their work?

Haans interacts with Allison and Russell, and references Jules' letter. These things may seem nit-picky, but I really don't understand how a radical constructivist can never reference an external world.

Constructivism and Mental Illness

According to radical constructivism, there is no objective reality or truth that we as humans can know about. Mental illnesses, often diagnosed due to "abnormal behavior", are relying on the assumption that there is a "normal" and objective way to behave, think, and feel. First of all, if all we can ever know is how we ourselves feel, how can we medicalize the way somebody else feels? A radical constructivist would say that we cannot tell a delusional or hallucinating person that what they are experiencing is not real; a doctor/medical professional has only his or her own experience to pit against the patient's.

Even a medical professional cannot know the way most people feel, or the "normal" way to feel. They can only know the way they feel. So, how can they determine if somebody's mental state is abnormal? How do they know that their own state isn't abnormal? Are medical professionals judging what is normal based on what they experience? Furthermore, what is considered abnormal, and is it socially constructed?

(Another) Response to Becky's Post, "A Radical Construction of People"

Although I already responded to Becky's post about Constructing people, I have been thinking about it more and I want to respond again. Becky said in her post that you couldn't really know a person until you experience them yourself; you can't trust other people's judgements and opinions. According to the radical constructivist, you cannot know anything outside of your own experience. However, what if you trust another person's judgement enough to take their word as fact (or almost fact)? If a radical constructivist knows somebody who always seems to interpret the world the same way you do, can he or she rely on that person for the "truth" (or their version of the truth that tends to match up with his/hers)? Can a radical constructivist rely on other people for information?

Response to Becky- A Radical Construction of People

Becky asked about constructing people in her blog. She gave the example of hearing about somebody, without ever having experienced the person. For the sake of making things easy to understand, let's pretend that Becky overhears people talking about a person named Mark. If Becky has never experienced Mark herself, a radical constructivist would conclude that she cannot prove that Mark exists, despite the fact that other people claim to have met him. Not only can Becky not make conclusions about Mark's personality or characteristics, but she cannot prove his physical existence in the world. However, even if she had experienced Mark, I still think a radical constructivist would argue that there is no proof that he actually exists. She has experienced Mark, so to her, he exists. But since we all construct our own realities, according to radical constructivism, this is not enough to prove that Mark exists in an objective world. Is this radical constructivism, or is it getting into solipsism, where an individual does not believe that anything exists outside of him/herself?

Radical Constructivism, Education, and Mathematics

A constructivist approach to educating would involve letting students construct their own knowledge. Educators often simply tell their students "the facts" and expect them to memorize formulas without understanding them. A constructivist would let their students invent their own version of knowledge through experimentation. For example, being told that pi=3.14, and that the circumference of a circle equals its diameter times pi, will not help a student really understand the meaning of pi. However, some educators let their students discover the meaning of pi by giving them a string and a cylinder and having them realize that the circumference is 3.14 times greater than the diameter. This is constructivist because the students are constructing their own knowledge; they aren't simply being told what pi is. However, since all students would theoretically construct the same ideas about pi, are they really inventing their own knowledge, or are they discovering something about an objective universe? If the latter is true, then this approach to education is not constructivist, since radical constructivists believe there is no objective reality or universal truth. So, is mathematics discovered or created? How does this fit into radical constructivism?

Many people would agree that the world is somewhat, if not completely, constructed. Given the many conflicting ideas, perspectives, and versions of truth, some may conclude that there is no objective reality. Radical constructivists believe that individuals construct their own version of reality through cognitive processes. However, I think there are other ways for knowledge to be constructed. Groups of people can construct aspects of their reality. There are many social institutions that have been constructed by humanity as a whole, not just one individual person. These social constructs do not, however, reflect any objective reality. This is similar to radical constructivism because the knowledge and ideas constructed do not reflect any empirical data. What is the relationship between social constructs and cognitive constructs of knowledge?