The newest critique to Radical Constructivism (RC), an article by David K. Johnson titled "Footprints in the Sand" in Constructivist Foundations 6 (1), does in no way contribute to understand the weaknesses of Radical Constructivism, it is merely
sleepysand in the mind's eye:
At the basis of the obfuscation and jungle of misunderstandings contained in David K. Johnson's article lies the
fundamental confusion:
- "a THING, in contrast to our thoughts of that THING, surely does exist outside of thought"
This is well exemplified in a statement found in the new book by David K. Johnson & Matthew Silliman (2009:8):
- "But rocks, in contrast to our thoughts of rocks, surely do exist outside of thought, a fact that alone explains Alison’s stumbling on this rock along a road in Vermont without first thinking it into existence." From: Johnson D. K. & Silliman M. R. (2009) Bridges to the world. Sense, Rotterdam, page 8.
From David K. Johnson's article we can learn three lessons:
- The fundamental emotion of Johnson's critique “is powered by the authority of universally valid knowledge” (Maturana & Poerksen 2004:41-42) and the basis of its explanations is the reference to objects in the external reality.
- This kind of criticism to RC originates from an unaware confusion between what belongs to RC and what belongs to Realism.
- A blind spot makes that critics do not understand how to deal with things in themselves and as a consequence easily overlook the intimate relationship between the two sides of the radical constructivist coin: construction & viability.
