User talk:Chrisdel

Hi, Chrisdel, Welcome  to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place &mdash; I sure do &mdash; and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Help and the FAQ, plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place  on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly. ---

Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
 * You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
 * If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. &mdash; Kf4bdy talk contribs

PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian.

 Click here to respond to this message!

constructivism (learning theory)
Hey, can you remove the proposal to merge the constructivism (learning theory) article with the constructionism article? They are very different things (see the discussion page of the constructivism article), plus it has been on there since October of 2006... Thanks! Cmsmith81 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, i've just read your message. Now, it's already done, but it would be better to insert clear reference to the 2nd in the 1st, explaining the difference. Thanks to write your message in discussion page and not user page :) Cheers. Chrisdel 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hello
Hi, in this debate it is important to make the difference between postmodernists and constructivists. You can find the main proponents for constructivism in the article Constructivist epistemology and particularly Jean Piaget, Edgar Morin, french scientist Jean-Louis Le Moigne who were attacked by the very realist French Academy of Science (it is described by Ernst von Glasersfeld in "Le Moigne's Defense of Constructivism" and its thought is also explained here "A Principal Exposition of Jean-Louis Le Moigne’s Systemic Theory") and french professor of Physics, specialist on Quantum Mechanics Mioara Mugur-Schächter (see two articles in english here). In few words, constructivism proposes inter-subjectivity instead of objectivity and viability instead of truth. May i ask why looking for an objective truth ? Isn't that a metaphysical quest ? The constructivist point a view is more pragmatic as Vico said "the truth is to have made it". Constructivists only suggest new definitions for knowledge and truth (so a new epistemology) so that "sciences of the artificial" (as cybernetics, automatics or decision theory, see Herbert Simon), management & engineering sciences can justify their teaching and have a space in the academy as "real sciences". Chrisdel 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this might help for the article, but I found your commentary interesting. Really, I typed a long-winded comment before my browser jammed and I had to quit and loose everything I wrote. Nonetheless, I do think that the distinction between postmodernism and constructivism is important though there are clearly simillarities between them. I also think it is important to note the difference between constructivist theories in the tradition of Piaget's individualism and the more social subjective forms in the tradition of Vygotsky; themes extensively debated by the two seminal figures in constructivism (see Tryphon and Voneche, The Social Genesis of Thought, 1996). American psychologies remain individualistic while European psychologies are more socially intersubjective. There are pros and cons to each. In relation to the philosophy of science, some additonal reading I previously discussed before my browser frozen include:
 * Kitchener, Piaget's Theory of Knowledge, 1986.
 * Vollmer, "Kant and Evolutionary Epistemology," and Tennant, "Evolutionary Epistemology," in Weingartner & Czermak, Epistemology and Philosophy of science, 1993.
 * I also might be able to find some specific articles on the difference between American individualism in psychology and European intersubjectivity if you like. Just thought you would find these readings interesting. --Kenneth M Burke 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Philosophy of science)


 * Hi, i've just read your comment on constructivism, i hadn't seen it for the discussion was quite old. Thanks for the readings, they look interesting. I'm also interested on articles on the difference between American individualism in psychology and European intersubjectivity Cheers. Chrisdel 18:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenneth_M_Burke"
 * Social Psychology Quarterly 53(2), 1990 is a special issue on the subject. Morgan, D.L. & Schwalbe, M.L. "Mind and Self in Society: social structure and cognition" specifically define the the dichotomy as the difference between European social psychology and American individualism. I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this American/European distinction is common, but do know that the two threads are frequently debated (as with the different constructivist thought of Piaget and Vygotsky in the book I previously mentioned).  In terms of the influence of constructivist oriented philosophy, the social theories and ideation have generally failed to be recognized (as evident with the book on the philosophy of science that I previously mentioned; but, it is a good book with short, easy to read and authoritative articles on philosophy directly related but never formally stated as correlated to Piagetian constructivism).


 * In international relations, constructivist and social constructivist theories have emerged. The literature is not hard to find.  They generally tend to emphasize social intersubjectivity (i.e. Vygotskian over Piagetian constructivism) and often make explicit critiques of American individualism.  My masters thesis in political science actually focused on constructivism in international relations.  I would argue that they have not articulated constructivist theories in the sense of the theory defined by constructivism in psychology and education.  This is a severe downfall for the theory in political science, but I don't hold it against them as my thesis was far from anything to brag about.  I think the philosophy book in particular provides directions for the Wikipedia page you were working on.  I think I can also find some books that make more direct connections.  Thanks for stopping by my talk page. --Kenneth M Burke 23:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. The ideas and connections are sometimes so simple, they get complicated. --Kenneth M Burke 16:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I've never awarded a barnstar and believe I shouldn't award any greater than I've earned, but thought you deserve one.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)