Re: LOGO-L> constructionism

[Neville Dinning <ndinning@nexus.edu.au>]

KERRB@Magill.UniSA.edu.au wrote:

> How could constructionism be proved wrong?
>
> constructionism = we make mental models of the environment
>
> There is one view of science that says if a theory can't be disproved
> then it
> is worthless.
>
> -- Bill Kerr
>

Constructionism could be proved wrong if we can find one instance where
we do not make mental models of the environment.

What sort of mental models do we make of the environment of scientific
views, or do we make mental models of this environment?

EITHER We make mental models of scientific theories (views?), in which
case we have not yet proven constructionism wrong,

OR We do not make mental models of scientific theories, which the
particular view of science referred to might then accept as making
constuctionism not worthless.

HOWEVER Is it possible to show that the particular view of science
referred to by Bill can be disproved? If not, then that particular view
(or theory) of science is worthless.

Could we perhaps being following of the course of the turtle programmed
to repeat 360[fd 1 rt 1]?

Neville.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.