Social Constructivism and The Sokal Hoax.

ISAW

More on the history and philosophy of science which I should have saved for a paper.

I recently had a debate in one of the science forums about the opinion (held by the other poster) that one could not criticise or comment on general relativity without having advanced mathematics.

I have a big problem with this type of position. I don't like PhD students in French telling me that "I wouldn't understand" the linguistics of African languages and it isnt good enough for a psychologist or cosmologist to aruge for the same authority.

One may respect medics but not have to believe even a specialist and may get a second opinion. But one is meant to trust cosmologists when in reality there are many solutions to the equations of GR without going OUTSIDE science.

On the other hand, in our increasingly multidisciplinary world how expert should inter disciplinary peer review be?

I support manned spaceflight and have posted one of the best critiques of it by sttphen Weinberg entitled "The Wrong Stuff"
That was published in the New York Review of Books. Here is another of my favourites missives by him from the same source. It is an example of what my detractors would state as "not knowing your field"

It is quite famous in skeptic circles. It is called the Sokal hoax. In it Sokal did a "chomskybot" on physics and got it published in a journal

Here are some gems:

"Einstein's equations [in the general theory of relativity] are highly nonlinear, which is why traditionally trained mathematicians find them so difficult to solve."

"the pi of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity."

With a straight face, he leaps from Bohr's observation that in quantum mechanics "a complete elucidation of one and the same object may require diverse points of view which defy a unique description" to the conclusion that "postmodern science" refutes "the authoritarianism and elitism inherent in traditional science."

Here is the Weinberg quote that struck me though:

weinberg wrote:

If our expression of the laws of nature is socially constructed, it is constructed in a society of scientists that evolves chiefly through grappling with nature's laws.

Which is fairly much the stance I take. To unchomskyvate it, for the non HPS people Weinberg AFAIK is saying that even if we all have a different perception of some "thing" and have different opinions about that "thing" which are in turn affcted also by our background the "thing" itself is really there and exists independently of anyone perceiving it.

Anyway enough of social history here is Sokal's history and text:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

pH

To understand the hoax you need to have the perspective of what was being written in cultural studies/science studies papers (and still is!). Dense text, that was very hard to read and understand, peppered with insights based on theories from physics/maths.

It was a sneak counter attack against what had been considered an enemy force, camped around 'science' taking pot shots.

The quotes from Sokal are poor compared to his targets! Take Jacques Lacan for example (excerpt from lecture given at The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man):

This diagram[Diagram of Mobius Strip] can be considered the basis of a sort of essential inscription at the origin, in the knot which constitutes the subject. This goes much further than you might think at first, because you can search for the sort of surface able to receive such inscriptions. You can perhaps see that the sphere, that old symbol for totality, is unsuitable. A torus, a Klein bottle, a cross-cut surface, are able to receive such a cut. And this diversity is very important as it explains many things about the structure of mental disease. If one can symbolize the subject by this fundamental cut, in the same way one can show that a cut on a torus corresponds to the neurotic subject, and on a cross-cut surface to another sort of mental disease. http://www.lacan.com/hotel.htm

Sokal is saying this is just nonsense, pure and utter rubbish - using concepts from topology to make insights into mental illness. His latest book recaps the hoax and defends his position against the attacks that followed.

ISAW

pH wrote:

To understand the hoax you need to have the perspective of what was being written in cultural studies/science studies papers (and still is!). ...
The quotes from Sokal are poor compared to his targets!

... His [sokals] latest book recaps the hoax and defends his position against the attacks that followed.

Here
is a guy I met a few years back who started me seriously down the road against constructivism. Matthews starts off by listing many of the "authorities" of constructivism. He lays it on the line when he states

In fact, according to constructivism, laws of nature do not exist; rather, all knowledge is subjective and personal (Airasian and Walsh 1998) and is a product of our own cognitive acts (Matthews 1993).

Now I can tell you that the constructivist school is all pervasive in science education! Note this in Matthews conclusion. It is a "construct" I have come to validate

After reading education journals over the past several years, one could easily assume that all teachers are constructivists. The constructivist is presented as the effective teacher, while the opposing teacher is painted as that relic of the past whose students are sitting in neat rows and dying of boredom.

pH

I was just making the point that after reading both "Fashionable Nonsense" and "The Sokal Hoax" I'm of the opiniom that it was not directly an attack on Constructivism, more an attack on postmodernist abuse of scientific theories in meaningless articles solely to try and make themselves look clever.

Fashionable Nonsense jacket wrote:

...Sokal teams up with Jean Bricmount to expose the abuse of scientific concepts in the writings of today's most fashionable postmodern thinkers

From your original post, it was not clear to me how the two relate.

ISAW wrote:

Now I can tell you that the constructivist school is all pervasive in science education! Note this in Matthews conclusion. It is a "construct" I have come to validate

As to the the Constructivism in education question, given the emphasis on exams I see no evidence of this, unless it is a subtle critique of teaching technique as opposed to content that I'm missing.

If you sit Leaving cert biology, physics or chemistry there is absolutely no room in your answers for "laws of nature do not exist; rather, all knowledge is subjective and personal (Airasian and Walsh 1998) and is a product of our own cognitive acts". Try to answer your biology paper with explanations of energy lines you get zero marks.

To paraphrase a saying that I hate, "There are no Constructivists at 30,000 ft".

ISAW

I can't quote you or refer to links as it seems to crash the reply.
A google of "science+education+cell+biology" yields over 28 million hits.
"science+education+biology" over 100,000,000

A google of "science +education +constructivism" yields 1,000,000.
In the first page of these you can see how many teacher training institutions are influenced by this.
I cant post links since thie posting programme seems to crash

So much for popular culture. A result of somewhere between 30 and 100 to one.

What about a search of ERIC. The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education, produces the world’s premier database of journal and non-journal education literature.

Science education 127,947

science education physics 18,649
science education chemistry 12,106
science education biology 9,677
science education philosophy 4,211



science education constructivism 1,147
over 25 per cent of the total of papers reported under philosophy
31 since 2004


compare this to say another dominant factor in irish Education - Piaget
science education piaget - 721 hits

science education cell biology yields 366 hits 8 since 2004

I will stick by pervasive but will remove the “all” if you like.
How is that for a compromise?

Yossie

Hi ISAW, pH

Unfortunately ISAW, I’m inclined to agree your science forum opponent. Whether you like it or not the language of reality/science is fundamentally mathematics and wordy descriptions of such maths are alas only analogies (all be it interesting and helpful ones for conceptualisation).

It’s interesting that you declare yourself against constructionist thought, because I had you down as having leanings in that direction. You have quoted Kuhn (the Doyen scientist of the constructionist idea) to me in our lengthy God debate, trying to show science had dogma at its core.

Also, you yourself quoted a misinterpretation of the infamous Gödel’s “Theory of Incompleteness” in some other tread. You claimed it had these overarching consequences for areas of interest well outside that of mathematics, setting limiting on what we could know; to which I responded with a quote from Roger Penrose’s “Road to reality”.

Like I said in that same thread “relativity”, “quantum theory”, the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”, “chaos” etc have been misinterpreted or worse, deliberately used to claim some mystic element to the workings of the universe or claimed to be applicable to vastly unrelated areas of study.

This is the danger of bad pop-science where the commentators have only a superficial knowledge of the subject in question and what the answers supplied by those theories may imply. Such theories are sexed-up, aided by some unfortunate choices in theory names and then bandied about in pub-philosophy conversations. (Of course, good pop-science does endless good to the materialist cause.)

Even if one has a good overall understanding of an area, that doesn’t provide the requisite mathematically skills for full engagement with the topic. This is not to question that one may be capable of understanding the maths involved, which would allow one to justifiably give meaningful criticism. (Although I wouldn’t give authority to any individual who happened to have the maths skills. Always get those second opinions!)

The intricacies of science and maths are not like language, music and Irelands chances of qualifying for the world cup, where one does not need to have suffered directly or have expert knowledge of to give valid opinions. However, modern science and mathematical knowledge at it cutting edge cannot be democratised in this way. (Allocation of scientific funding etc can of course have improved democratisation.)

By themselves, no amount of critical thinking, deconstruction, literary critical analysis etc of scientific theories can provide any insight into or explain the very complex realities that lie at the heart of scientific investigations.


Re Education:
I do however agree with ISAW that “education studies” is shot through with the constructionist/post-modern philosophy, often motivated by the rather honourable non-competitive idea that every student’s best efforts and achievements are equal.

What ever about the Leaving Cert science exams themselves, it is possible for some access/disadvantaged students to gain entry to college courses without having to get the necessary points. (I’m all for equal opportunity, I just think that it should come from the fair redistribution of wealth and resources rather than a lowering of the educational standard.)


On the Sokal hoax:
I’d highly recommend “Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science” by Paul R. Gross & Norman Levitt. It’s the book that inspired Sokal to try his hoax and it is most definitely a call to arms against constructionist thought. (Nice chapter in there on Kuhn and even some mention of Gödel and his theorem.)

The hoax itself, IMHO, was an important missile in the “science wars”. One that brought the debate to the wider public, bringing to light what was happening in many 3rd level institutes where people were making careers and worse, were trying to negatively influence government and civil bodies in their attitude towards the science fields, all on the back of spurious arguments that distilled down to either trivial truisms or nonsensical gibberish.

ISAW

Yossie wrote:

Hi ISAW, pH

Unfortunately ISAW, I’m inclined to agree your science forum opponent.

what can I say. it is two to one against. I must be wrong.

Whether you like it or not the language of reality/science is fundamentally mathematics and wordy descriptions of such maths are alas only analogies (all be it interesting and helpful ones for conceptualisation).

Nah. The idea that social science or cytology or psychology can all be reduced to first principles using mathematics really does not wash with me.

It’s interesting that you declare yourself against constructionist thought, because I had you down as having leanings in that direction. You have quoted Kuhn (the Doyen scientist of the constructionist idea) to me in our lengthy God debate, trying to show science had dogma at its core.

and Galileo was opposed to the peripathetic/Aristotlean school of philosophy. this does not mean he was anti Aristotle.

Also, you yourself quoted a misinterpretation of the infamous Gödel’s “Theory of Incompleteness” in some other tread. You claimed it had these overarching consequences for areas of interest well outside that of mathematics, setting limiting on what we could know; to which I responded with a quote from Roger Penrose’s “Road to reality”.

dont know what exactly you are referring to but i accept i might have done that. but I just made the same point above about applying mathamatics to everything.

Like I said in that same thread “relativity”, “quantum theory”, the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”, “chaos” etc have been misinterpreted or worse, deliberately used to claim some mystic element to the workings of the universe or claimed to be applicable to vastly unrelated areas of study.

I must have learned something than since I posted that is waht sokal was doing here. Synchronicity?

This is the danger of bad pop-science where the commentators have only a superficial knowledge of the subject in question and what the answers supplied by those theories may imply.

Is this a personal reference to me? pretentious? moi?

Such theories are sexed-up, aided by some unfortunate choices in theory names and then bandied about in pub-philosophy conversations. (Of course, good pop-science does endless good to the materialist cause.)

are you claiming that i have a pub talk level of understanding of the history and philosophy of science? And that opinion is based on what?

Even if one has a good overall understanding of an area, that doesn’t provide the requisite mathematically skills for full engagement with the topic. This is not to question that one may be capable of understanding the maths involved, which would allow one to justifiably give meaningful criticism.

I am quickly beginning to look upon this as a veiled personal attack.

The intricacies of science and maths are not like language, music and Irelands chances of qualifying for the world cup, where one does not need to have suffered directly or have expert knowledge of to give valid opinions. However, modern science and mathematical knowledge at it cutting edge cannot be democratised in this way. (Allocation of scientific funding etc can of course have improved democratisation.)

I seem to recollect a similar thread in another discussion. Please only bring it in here if it is relevant to the discussion. The funding bit is what twigged me on it. I think I mentioned that people who decide on what funding scientists get are rarely scientists who are adept in that field. I also may have said a scientocracy would be a very dull world.

By themselves, no amount of critical thinking, deconstruction, literary critical analysis etc of scientific theories can provide any insight into or explain the very complex realities that lie at the heart of scientific investigations.

I think I remember mentioning that this type of analysis was elitest and insulting? If it is applied to me I certainly take it that way. Otherwise care to give some specific examples?

Re Education:
I do however agree with ISAW that “education studies” is shot through with the constructionist/post-modern philosophy, often motivated by the rather honourable non-competitive idea that every student’s best efforts and achievements are equal.

I thought this was the main point in my last reply. and while you agreeing with me may suddenly turn the tables to two to one for my opinion I would prefer if you also supplied some evidence to support that opinion.

What ever about the Leaving Cert science exams themselves, it is possible for some access/disadvantaged students to gain entry to college courses without having to get the necessary points. (I’m all for equal opportunity, I just think that it should come from the fair redistribution of wealth and resources rather than a lowering of the educational standard.)

Higher points do not mean students who have them are better for a profession. They only ultimately objectively measure how good they are at passing exams.

On the Sokal hoax:
I’d highly recommend ...

Thanks for that.

The hoax itself, IMHO, was an important missile in the “science wars”. One that brought the debate to the wider public, bringing to light what was happening in many 3rd level institutes where people were making careers and worse, were trying to negatively influence government and civil bodies in their attitude towards the science fields, all on the back of spurious arguments that distilled down to either trivial truisms or nonsensical gibberish.

It seems we agree on something. But I would add that I do not regard science as "certain" and do somewhat agree with the "post normal" science paradygm.

Yossie

I’m still not up to speed with the effective tactics of conducting a debate in these threads. It appears to me that you deconstruct my posts line-by-line rather than dealing with the "meat and veg" of my points. Sometimes I think you even deliberately misunderstand my points. It’s frustrating Does that make us both as paranoid as each other? :rolleyes:

ISAW
I am quickly beginning to look upon this as a veiled personal attack.

A veiled personal attack you ask; certainly not! :eek: But I do give my honest opinion of some of your comments which I consider to be of a constructionist hue. Like your references to Kuhn and Godel. If you want a back-handed compliment, then it is only your posts that stir me in cobbling together mine, which sometimes takes a lot out of me. (Best I can do )

Anyway……….

ISAW
Nah. The idea that social science or cytology or psychology can all be reduced to first principles using mathematics really does not wash with me

Never claimed you need to reduce everything to mathematical first principles. It would be a very ineffective biologist or chemist who tried to work with the fundamental physics underlying their work, yet it is undeniable that their work is build upon those unseen (and uncared for) equations. Paraphrasing Steven Weinberg, whom you quoted earlier, there is a general arrow to the explanation of reality and the direction of that arrow is down, hence the import of fundamental physics. I agree with Prof. Weinberg and in this sense that science is reductionist. Both chemists and biologist work at levels of understanding that are fruitful to their respective areas, and have no need of a GUT. Same goes for your social scientists and psychologists to whom atoms and molecules need not be considered (even though there is still that undeniable physical basis to their work).

Having said that, if you want to comment intelligently on the pros and cons of general relativity, string theory, cosmology, chaos or some such topic then yes, you do need to know the maths involved. Without it the true nature of those topics are impenetrable.

ISAW
.........was opposed to the peripathetic/Aristotlean........

I learn so many new words from you. Language is a big part of it for you, a bit like it is to the constructionists. (That was a cheap shot, sorry )

ISAW
dont know what exactly you are referring to but i accept i might have done that.

What I was refereeing to was ………

ISAW from "Why isn't ISS...atheist?" thread.
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

ISAW
but I just made the same point above about applying mathamatics to everything.

Don’t you mean your misappling mathematics, similar to what Sokal et al. highlighted in their books perhaps?

You also quoted Kuhn that science only changed through revolutions in the ruling paradigms

ISAW from "Why isn't ISS...atheist?" thread.
Science is dogma free? How about existence of space and time? postulates of relativity? principles of cosmology? homogenity or isotropy? Science only moves from these in revolutions. I refer here to the "scientific revolutions" which Kuhn's philosophy refers to. Have you read "the Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? It is worth a read. Analogous theological and political constructs in the Church changed in the Reformation and counter Reformation.

Kuhn in his book (and his supporters) claimed that there was no objective way to judge the merits of any paradigm because any metre stick to do so is contained within the paradigm itself, therefore progress is not possible and everything is relative. Your use of Kuhn's "revolutions" in this case is constructionist.

ISAW
are you claiming that i have a pub talk level of understanding of the history and philosophy of science? And that opinion is based on what?

Sounds like you are itching to tell me your credentials, so go on ahead.

ISAW
Is this a personal reference to me? pretentious? moi?

It wasn’t a reference to you at all. I think we all enjoy a good session of pub philosophy; it can be both fun and informative but you’ll have to admit, it’s not going to push out the bounds of human knowledge. When it comes the weighty stuff it’s a case of Ne sutor ultra Crepidam. And hence I defer to your greater knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, when you quote Galileo, although - eppur si muove.

ISAW
I think I remember mentioning that this type of analysis was elitest and insulting?

Funnily enough that's what the constructionists said when told that they are not in a position to judge the epistimological merits of the science they are writing about. It's not meant to be insulting just a matter of fact. For examples see Sokal et al.

iSAW
It seems we agree on something. But I would add that I do not regard science as "certain" and do somewhat agree with the "post normal" science paradygm.

I also don’t regard science (rational enquiry, to include history, etc., etc.) as certain, but it is the best route to reliable knowledge of reality. (I’ll have to study up on “post normal paradigms” and get back to you on it )

pH

Yossie wrote:

Hi ISAW, pH

Re Education:
I do however agree with ISAW that “education studies” is shot through with the constructionist/post-modern philosophy, often motivated by the rather honourable non-competitive idea that every student’s best efforts and achievements are equal.

What ever about the Leaving Cert science exams themselves, it is possible for some access/disadvantaged students to gain entry to college courses without having to get the necessary points. (I’m all for equal opportunity, I just think that it should come from the fair redistribution of wealth and resources rather than a lowering of the educational standard.)

I'm still not buying this. Entry policy into 3rd level college has nothing to do with teaching practices, it reflects on admission practices.

The point both of you are making here is that science education is shot through with constructionist thinking. Given that science education does not exist at primary level, you must mean 2nd and 3rd level.

Can either of you expand on what you mean by this, giving examples of how it effects what is taught and how it is taught in say a leaving cert honours physics/chemistry/biology class.

ISAW

pH wrote:

I'm still not buying this. ...that science education is shot through with constructionist thinking. ...Can either of you expand on what you mean by this, giving examples of how it effects what is taught and how it is taught in say a leaving cert honours physics/chemistry/biology class.

Well I suppose I refer to the teacher training and the academics who develop the philosophy and the underlying theory of teaching and learning science. One can have "guided" learning or "the pupil as a scientist" or new curricula without having to insist it is underpinned by a particular epistemological view.

In a way I am argueing that just as logical positivism was self defeating (and that is ultimately wher one goes in reducing everything to the laws of a formal system such as logic ) so constructivism is a system which claims to respect all viewpoints and take them on board. I guess like the Godel paradox I am trying to get them to take on the statement "I do not respect constructivism" .

In a practical sense we have the likes of Rosalind Driver:
the constructivist approach applies not only to the development of personal knowledge but aslo to science as public knowledge.

Here is a stated goal of extending the philosophy into teaching practice and the "extended peer community".

There is also for example Richard White and a strong cadre from Monash university who subscribe to constructivism and who endeavour to bring the theory into teaching practice in the school.
Now many of the "hard" science people here may feel that one can not have people learning science through effective methods if the underlying theory for that method is wrong. Then again one can argue that Piaget was wrong but it does not stop methods develped from him from working.
At the really mad end you have people at conferences who describe Newtons Principa as a "rape manual". Now personally I do not think I would like Newton but his science was sound.

ISAW

Yossie wrote:

I’m still not up to speed with the effective tactics of conducting a debate in these threads. It appears to me that you deconstruct my posts line-by-line rather than dealing with the "meat and veg" of my points

You should try usenet!
[qoute]
. Sometimes I think you even deliberately misunderstand my points. It’s frustrating Does that make us both as paranoid as each other?
[/quote]

If I dont understand it is probably dullness on my part rather than paranoia.

...But I do give my honest opinion of some of your comments which I consider to be of a constructionist hue. Like your references to Kuhn and Godel. If you want a back-handed compliment, then it is only your posts that stir me in cobbling together mine, which sometimes takes a lot out of me.

Damning with feint praise eh ? I did not study philosophy or logic or sociology for years so I have a problems because I cant disprove constructivism. I still dont like the idea.

Never claimed you need to reduce everything to mathematical first principles. It would be a very ineffective biologist or chemist who tried to work with the fundamental physics underlying their work, yet it is undeniable that their work is build upon those unseen (and uncared for) equations. Paraphrasing Steven Weinberg, whom you quoted earlier, there is a general arrow to the explanation of reality and the direction of that arrow is down, hence the import of fundamental physics. I agree with Prof. Weinberg and in this sense that science is reductionist. Both chemists and biologist work at levels of understanding that are fruitful to their respective areas, and have no need of a GUT. Same goes for your social scientists and psychologists to whom atoms and molecules need not be considered (even though there is still that undeniable physical basis to their work).

Ah but maybe there is "something else" in human beings whether the whole is greater than the parts and we are not just a watery bag of electrical pulses?

Having said that, if you want to comment intelligently on the pros and cons of general relativity, string theory, cosmology, chaos or some such topic then yes, you do need to know the maths involved. Without it the true nature of those topics are impenetrable.

Unlike embrionic cytology? We can all comment on abortion but not ever have the knowledge about how cells reproduce. So one might ask when does a "reducable" human being become just a ball of cells?

I learn so many new words from you. Language is a big part of it for you, a bit like it is to the constructionists.

the point I was trying to get across and the reason I wrote the TWO words in was because Galileo was against the Perpathetic philosophers but not against Aristotle. If you hadnt seen the first word you might not have understood what I meant.

Don’t you mean your misappling mathematics, similar to what Sokal et al. highlighted in their books perhaps?

I believe I do.

You also quoted Kuhn that science only changed through revolutions in the ruling paradigms

Merchant of Venice, I.iii.98 even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose
Matthew 4:6

Kuhn in his book (and his supporters) claimed that there was no objective way to judge the merits of any paradigm because any metre stick to do so is contained within the paradigm itself, therefore progress is not possible and everything is relative. Your use of Kuhn's "revolutions" in this case is constructionist.

Lets say I like Kuhn but am not a Kuhnian

Kuhn fairly knocked the idea that there is One unified science about one real world; that the "softer" sciences like psychology are eventually reducible to "harder" ones like biology then chemistry then to physics/maths.

Sounds like you are itching to tell me your credentials, so go on ahead.

I dont argue from authority.

Popper and kuhn squared off while other giants like Feyerabend and Lakatos circled and jumped from side to side. In the meantime Rachel Carson had left the boys to duke it out and snuck out the back door to write Silent Spring. One of the few books I have two copies of.

anyway as result of the sokal Latour spat i am entirely mixed up but if you want to label me I will go for the Edinburgh "strong programme" because I believe there is a reality out there but I have been infected by relativists who made me believe we cant ultimately describe it.

.... When it comes the weighty stuff it’s a case of Ne sutor ultra Crepidam.

But that is boxing everyone into a field and creating artificial boundaries. And for example how do you solve the abortion problem. Is it only for women/pregnant women/cytologists to decide on?

And hence I defer to your greater knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, when you quote Galileo, although - eppur si muove.

It depends what moves. Galileo was found guilty of supision of two minor heresies. that the Earth moved and that it went round the Sun. Feyerabend
really gave that bad bad Galileo the treatment as a"heretic" of a different kind for violating the scientific method. I read Galileo's original work (in translation but I have actually seen the Original) and I think the man was a genius.

[snip]

I also don’t regard science (rational enquiry, to include history, etc., etc.) as certain, but it is the best route to reliable knowledge of reality. (I’ll have to study up on “post normal paradigms” and get back to you on it )

Well at least we agree on something then. Lets outvote that PH guy and make him paraniod now

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

...without having to insist it is underpinned by a particular epistemological view.

I think a constructivist would have written "ontologically epistemic"

Anyway the point is we can get into false dichotomies e.g. do we make it all up as we go along or is something "really" there for us to find out about? It probably is worth talking about in the Skeptics sence suince it all boils down to "We create our own reality" . Now, whether in a scientific field or not this is true to some degree.
But in a scientific sence if my reality says homeopathy works then that is up to me but people believeing it wont change the laws of the universe. So just when I feel happy I hear a voice. "Ah" said the constructivist "what laws" ?

I would like to refer to the most published work written by a scientist. A matematician to be exact. Someone who knew about formal representations and reducing things to first principles. It does raise the point about formal language to describe the universe but it also relates to the idea of total faith in reductionism.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't --- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --- that's all."