Although I'm not about to step into the fray, something here bothers me...
[quoting Tripp, 20 Feb 96] Warning to constructionists: since it is a principle of yours that people "construct their own meanings" and thus have internal systems of truth, you cannot claim that I am wrong without contradicting yourself. To say that I am wrong is to judge me by some external (i.e., non-constructed) standard of truth.
My guess is that this is supposed to be ironic; however, the tone of the rest of the letter makes it sound a little--harsh? Normally I'd just laugh it off, but, could you have actually meant this?
This doesn't particularly make sense to me. Of course people make meaning, make truths. That doesn't necessarily mean that every synthesis we engage in elides with the mass of observation out there. What would be the point of having a constructivist stance in education, if it weren't for the notion that people are creating untrue truths? The idea that an internal standard of truth is any more valid (i.e., useful) than one agreed upon by a group of observers is shaky. It also seems to leave out the mass of experimentation people do, as was implied by the Wright brother's example. So, who is saying that just because it's in your head, it's valid? I don't see how that matches up with the recognition that we do construct meaning.