QUESTION:

Dear Professor Von Glasersfeld,

 

In your september answer regarding the use of "accepted protocols of data

analysis" and "an existing theoretical framework for the analysis of

observations and interviews" I would like to stress that these methods -

in particular inferential statistics - are based on a false (untenable,

unviable) image of the method in the natural sciences e.g. physics.

Natural sciences proceed by explaining an unexpected finding (unexpected

experience), and when this explanation holds empirically (is tenable,

viable) it is accepted as a theory, as long as not a new unexpected

finding comes up.

 

Radical constructivism seems in agreement with this practice in as far

you say "to explain experiential data" - it must be "to explain

unexpected findings (unexepected exeperiences)". But it is not in

agreement with this practice when you say "thinking up of models to

systematize experiential data"! To adhere to accepted protocols of data

analysis, to adopt an existing theoretical framework for the analysis of

observations and interviews paralyzes new theorybuilding for it does not

take into account unexpected findings as a starting point for

theorybuilding. These standard protocols are not constructed as or out of

an explanation of an unexpected finding, on the contrary. Their method is

a kind of a stray jacket. Systematization as such never lead to insight,

knowledge. So, their epistemological status must be discussed,

immediately. The question must be raised why to systematize the way it is

done? Is the legitimatization for this systematization empirically

tenable?

 

Piaget was a master of new theory building in psychology: his whole

theory, all his ideas started from explaining unexpected findings.

 

Do you share these comments of mine?

 

R. Kooyman

The Netherlands

 

 

 

ANSWER:

 

Dear Mr. Kooyman,

 

Whether a conceptual structure or theory is considered viable or not

depends on the context and the purpose for which it was constructed.

Some expressions in your letter make me think that you are looking for

something like absolute viability, which would make it all too similar

to ontological truth.

 

As long as a way of systematizing experience allows you to achieve your

purpose in similar situations , the systematization is viable and can be

considered "knowledge". You are right in saying that it can never lead to

"insight", if by this you mean a glimpse of "how things are".

 

As long as you are surveying land for farmers in areas of relatively

limited size, the "flat earth theory" is viable and you don't need to

use spherical geometry. Unless a child of one of those farmers becomes

interested in philosophy or psychology, there is little point in

bothering him or her with epistemology.

 

In our society, some awareness of the relativity of theories and methods

seems necessary because politicians and their subservient "media"

constantly claim to know absolute truths.

Best wishes,

Ernst von Glasersfeld
 

BACK | TORNA INDIETRO