Counter Constructivism - The Infamous "Mountain Allegory"
Which was originally, "The Blind Men and the Elephant," when I was a kid.
So, a bunch of people are giving their different "perspectives on the same reality" by examining some mountain. They see different features and characterize the mountain as having the features that they see. Little do they know that the mountain actually has all of the reported features. Hooray.
Here's my problem. CC, as Nanikore often enough presents it, has a real weak stomach for declaring propositions to be true or false. So, my counter-example: A bunch of folks are looking at a mountain...
Steve sees waterfalls. He says, "The mountain has waterfalls!" Reiko sees jagged cliffs. She says, "The mountain has jagged cliffs."♀ Mubatu is in a helicopter flying around the mountain and sees both cliffs and waterfalls. He says, "The mountain has both jagged cliffs and waterfalls."♠
Enter Fiachra, Ta Kib' Chaak, and Minka. All of them are dying of thirst. Fiachra sees Steve and asks, "Is there any water on that mountain?"↕ Steve tells him that there is, in fact, water on the mountain. From his perspective on the reality of the mountain, Steve is right. Fiachra goes and gets some water. As a result, he goes on to live a long and happy life. God save Eire. Ta Kib' Chaak sees Reiko, and she asks, "Is there is any water on that mountain."§ Reiko says "No."♀ From Reiko's perspective on the reality of the mountain, she is right. Ta Kib' Chaak wanders off into the nearby plains to look for water. As a result, Ta Kib' Chaak dies of thirst. Minka, of course, has a radio and sees the helicopter. "Is there any water on the mountain?"¶ "Yes, there is,"♠ Mubatu tells her. From his perspective on the reality of the mountain, he is right. Minka goes to the mountain, finds the water, drinks her fill, and lives to see her great-grandchildren.
Now, Steve, Reiko, and Mubatu were all "right from their perspective." Still, I have to say that although Reiko may have been "right from her perspective," she was mistaken. Granted, she did the best she could from her limited knowledge, but she was still wrong. Conversely, Steve and Mubatu were right. The rightness or wrongness of their statements, in this case, had consequences (poor Ta Kib' Chaak).
So, while the people looking at the mountain may all be "right" in a sense, if one of them denies the existence of some true feature of the mountain, they are wrong. And in some cases, it's nice to know what the real truth is. Say what you want about what people "should have done" or what this "implies about how we look at reality." Likely, I would agree. But that doesn't change facts.
♀Translated from the Japanese
♠Translated from the Swahili
↕Translated from the Gaelic
§Translated from the Mayan
¶Translated from the Russian
So, a bunch of people are giving their different "perspectives on the same reality" by examining some mountain. They see different features and characterize the mountain as having the features that they see. Little do they know that the mountain actually has all of the reported features. Hooray.
Here's my problem. CC, as Nanikore often enough presents it, has a real weak stomach for declaring propositions to be true or false. So, my counter-example: A bunch of folks are looking at a mountain...
Steve sees waterfalls. He says, "The mountain has waterfalls!" Reiko sees jagged cliffs. She says, "The mountain has jagged cliffs."♀ Mubatu is in a helicopter flying around the mountain and sees both cliffs and waterfalls. He says, "The mountain has both jagged cliffs and waterfalls."♠
Enter Fiachra, Ta Kib' Chaak, and Minka. All of them are dying of thirst. Fiachra sees Steve and asks, "Is there any water on that mountain?"↕ Steve tells him that there is, in fact, water on the mountain. From his perspective on the reality of the mountain, Steve is right. Fiachra goes and gets some water. As a result, he goes on to live a long and happy life. God save Eire. Ta Kib' Chaak sees Reiko, and she asks, "Is there is any water on that mountain."§ Reiko says "No."♀ From Reiko's perspective on the reality of the mountain, she is right. Ta Kib' Chaak wanders off into the nearby plains to look for water. As a result, Ta Kib' Chaak dies of thirst. Minka, of course, has a radio and sees the helicopter. "Is there any water on the mountain?"¶ "Yes, there is,"♠ Mubatu tells her. From his perspective on the reality of the mountain, he is right. Minka goes to the mountain, finds the water, drinks her fill, and lives to see her great-grandchildren.
Now, Steve, Reiko, and Mubatu were all "right from their perspective." Still, I have to say that although Reiko may have been "right from her perspective," she was mistaken. Granted, she did the best she could from her limited knowledge, but she was still wrong. Conversely, Steve and Mubatu were right. The rightness or wrongness of their statements, in this case, had consequences (poor Ta Kib' Chaak).
So, while the people looking at the mountain may all be "right" in a sense, if one of them denies the existence of some true feature of the mountain, they are wrong. And in some cases, it's nice to know what the real truth is. Say what you want about what people "should have done" or what this "implies about how we look at reality." Likely, I would agree. But that doesn't change facts.
♀Translated from the Japanese
♠Translated from the Swahili
↕Translated from the Gaelic
§Translated from the Mayan
¶Translated from the Russian