Truth, facts, reality, fiction. Interesting thoughts to consider. I think that these are topics we can ultimately argue in circles about forever. You can say there are no absolutes, but that statement is an absolute statement itself, and in order to be true it has to be false. You can say there is no truth, but we know that there are things that are not true and have never been – like a flat earth – so if there are some things that were never “truth”, are there things that can be “truth”? Maybe we don’t know enough about Science yet to be at a point where we can examine actual absolute truths. Or maybe we are there and that is proof in and of itself. Interesting concepts to ponder that were brought up in the last class meeting.

What we do have to lean on is social agreements, and that is what I am beginning to understand is what Habermas and Bernstein are dissecting. Some of the readings from the upcoming week are also helping me to dissect these thoughts as well. I think I really need to see how these issues affect learning and research in a practical way. I know that Habermas is using several concrete “normal” examples, but it is really more of a sentence or two and then a few paragraphs of hacked translation. So seeing it pulled apart and reassembled in the context of a study really helps.

Of course, pondering all of this helps to consider the problems set forth by Prawat & Floden in their article. I’m still not sure which of the three perspectives that they set forth that constructivists have to take I really fall into. I think in reality I don’t like to be too extreme or one sided on many of these philosophical ideals – I really like to take hybrid or blended approaches to most issues.  Truth is rarely ever black and white. But Prawat & Floden wrote as if a hybrid approach was impossible. I still doubt that, but will see what time reveals.