In Defense of Realism: It Really Is Commonsense

摘要: “What is truth?” Pilot asked Jesus of Nazareth. For many in academe today this question seems quaintly passe. Rejection “truth” goes hand-in-hand with the rejection epistemological realism. Educational thought over last decade has instead been dominated by antirealist, instrumentalist ideas two types: first psychological constructivism and later social constructivism. Social subsequently pressed to its logical conclusion form relativistic multiculturalism. Proponents both value knowledge for utility eschew as irrelevant speculation any notion that actually about reality. The arguments are largely grounded discourse science education where “western” science; neither universal nor what really real. authors defended a previous article. present purpose offer commonsense argument defense critical realism epistemically ontologically distinguished position (rather than privileged) within framework pluralism. paper begins brief cultural survey events during thirty-year period from 1960-1990 brought educators break concludes comments on pedagogical importance Understanding milieu past forty years understanding why traditional philosophical attacks constructivist have proved impotent defenders scientific good Dr. Johnson James Boswell were walking down London street one day discussing George Berkeley's philosophy immaterialism. Johnson, unconvinced logic, said Boswell, "I refute it thus!" Upon which he turned soundly kicked curb his big toe – much Boswell's amusement! Along amused. Of course, Samuel Johnson's refutation immaterialism was no threat Berkeley. What did dramatically wisdom common folk everyday, ordinary life. most people an esoteric, arcane discipline little apparent practical value. Unfortunately, not always wise view. example, Duschl (1985) argued 25 curriculum developers ignored concurrent development science, resulting impoverished curricula. In since Duschl’s article there more interest history these fields pertain education. Indeed, educational (i.e., philosophical) reality speculation, thus label instrumentalism. We (Cobern & Loving, 2001). paper, our