GS, two things strike me as confusing:
1. On the one hand you say you don´t want the opinion of "unknown" persons, on the other hand you want to be taught radical constructivism by me of all.
2. You say you want to
be taught philosophy, but then you read one wikipedia (or whatever) paragraph, and immediately start
disputing the philosophy based on this very limited description.
As I have said before: If you really want to learn about a philosophy you would have to read their protagonists.
OK constructivism:
Is this accurate?
By and large: yes. It´s not inaccurate, but only as accurate as one paragraph can be in describing an entire philosophy.
Supposing it is, I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way.
From my knowledge radical constructivism doesn´t dispute that those models
may represent the world out there
in some way. Those models shape and arrange the world out there in the way we need it and want it.
As we base our theories on experience, and experience is of an objective reality (albeit primarily via a brain based model i.e. perception), then our theories are based on an objective reality.
Depending on what you mean exactly when saying "based on" I suspect radical constructivism wouldn´t necessarily disagree. It´s just that the parts or statements that appear to be particularly objective are at the same time particularly meaningless.
So I cannot dismiss claims against objectivism just like that.
Take evolution for instance, the theory would suggest that species have developed over time, alongside the claim that there are species etc.
And constructivism posits that there aren´t species - but instead that "species" is a human concept; an attempt to categorize the world out there in a useful manner that matches our needs.
I do not see why claims of objectivity have to be dismissed.
Because "possibly representing reality
in some way" is not the same as being objective.
In fact if we look at perceptual knowledge, why would action based on perception be useful if it did not represent reality to us?
Because rather than "representing reality" it is important to us that we order, categorize and interprete our perceptions and experiences in a way that is useful and meaningful to us.
We want meaning all the time - but raw data (which would be closest to possibly being "objective" are meaningless.