I found Rod's paper very thoughtful and well thought through. Most of all, I found it completely neutral with regard to the so-called instructivist-constructivist debate. I also happen to believe that the chapter of mine that Rod cited was also neutral with regard to instructivism-constructivism, as was my paper with Davidsen on this forum last month. Therefore, I found the comment that Reeves tossed in asserting that Rod's approach as well as mine were clearly within the instructivist camp (especially using inflammatory language like "Holy Grail") totally unwarranted and beside the point.
Like Rod, Tom has many good things to say--but they often fail to come through clearly, largely because of the baggage associated with a polarizing polemic that serves no scientific purpose.
(1 Sep 1995--1 Mar 1996):