What do you think?
Rate this book
The Certainty of Uncertainty: Dialogues Introducing Constructivism
Nothing that can be said is independent of us. Whatever can be said is coloured by our dreams and aspirations, by the way our brain works, by human nature and human culture. Whoever claims to know or to observe is - according to the central constructivist assumption - inescapably biased.
This book presents the views of the founders of constructivism and modern systems theory, who are still providing stimulating cues for international scientific debate. The conversations of Heinz von Foerster, Ernst von Glasersfeld, Humberto R. Maturana, Francisco J. Varela, Gerhard Roth, Siegfried J. Schmidt, Helm Stierlin, and Paul Watzlawick with Bernhard Poerksen, display a kind of thinking that steers clear of rigid fixation and reveals the ideal of objectivity to be a myth. The conversations turn on the results of brain research, the breaks through of cybernetics, the linguistic determination of thought, and the intrinsic connection between epistemology and ethical practice.
Throughout, the central figure of the observer is examined with sophisticated wit and just enough irritating grit to create the pearl in the oyster. Constructivism thus emerges as a philosophy of possibilities that keeps generating new points of view, insists on fundamental scepticism with regard to certainties and dogmas, and provides the foundation for an ethics of perception: Each and every one of us is responsible for their view of things.
This book presents the views of the founders of constructivism and modern systems theory, who are still providing stimulating cues for international scientific debate. The conversations of Heinz von Foerster, Ernst von Glasersfeld, Humberto R. Maturana, Francisco J. Varela, Gerhard Roth, Siegfried J. Schmidt, Helm Stierlin, and Paul Watzlawick with Bernhard Poerksen, display a kind of thinking that steers clear of rigid fixation and reveals the ideal of objectivity to be a myth. The conversations turn on the results of brain research, the breaks through of cybernetics, the linguistic determination of thought, and the intrinsic connection between epistemology and ethical practice.
Throughout, the central figure of the observer is examined with sophisticated wit and just enough irritating grit to create the pearl in the oyster. Constructivism thus emerges as a philosophy of possibilities that keeps generating new points of view, insists on fundamental scepticism with regard to certainties and dogmas, and provides the foundation for an ethics of perception: Each and every one of us is responsible for their view of things.
- GenresSciencePhilosophy
200 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2004
4 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
About the author
Bernhard Poerksen
9 books1 followerBernhard Pörksen studied German language and literature, journalism and biology in Hamburg. At the invitation of Ivan Illich he spent several research periods at Pennsylvania State University. Between 1996 and 1997, he worked both as a freelance journalist and as a voluntary editorial staff member of a newspaper.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 21, 2018
The German publicist-researcher Bernhard Poerksen interviewed 8 renowned scientists who directly, indirectly, and sometimes against their will, are linked to ‘constructivism’. It took a while before I realized what exactly is meant by that current in scientific thought. What it comes down to is that constructivists - in the eternal debate in Western philosophy and the scientific thinking on the duality between object and subject - resolutely say that every perception and representation of the reality is a construction, in other words that the subject, or the observer, is decisive, and that there is no external, objective reality that is existing separately, or – at least – that we can say nothing meaningful about that. Constructivism was introduced in the 1970s and is often linked with systems thinking and complexity theory.
Within that bandwidth, the 8 outstanding ‘constructivist’ scholars seem to hold very diverse opinions: the radical constructivists (cybernist von Foerster for instance) focus exclusively on the individual subject and absolutely don’t want to talk about a possible correspondence with an external reality; “everything is imagination, everyone creates his own truth” is the logic consequence; others are more nuanced and stress the importance of the social environment and conditioning of the subject (psychotherapist Helm Stierlin), making it possible to find common ground.
Personally, I was most attracted by the approach of the Chilean biologist Francisco J. Varela. He insists on the interactive relationship between subject and object, and so more or less takes an intermediate position: "My view is that subject and object determine and condition each other, that the knower and known arise in mutual dependence, that we neither represent an external world inside nor blindly and arbitrarily construct such a world and project it outside. My plea is for a middle way that avoids both the extremes or subjectivism and idealism, and the presumptions or realism and objectivism ". I also liked he takes into account an evolutionary aspect, in the conditioning of our way of observing reality; he seems the only one that observes ‘time’ as a relevant factor. Attached to this is a very practical approach in which Varela is very much inspired by the American pragmatism: truth is what works.
The interviewer, Bernhard Poerksen, again and agains asks his guests what the ethical implications are of the constructivist point of view, and that is good, because it shows that epistemology (the theory of knowledge) is not just an abstract, theoretical game, but has deep effects on being and acting. Constructivism regularly is accused of pleading for a complete relativism, and I do understand why that is said, but from the conversations in this book it is clear that this accusation is unjustified: almost all interviewees stress the need for the 'construction' of common values.
The title of this book, "The Certainty of Uncertainty" is certainly a good choice because it reflects the ultimate consequence of Constructivism: uncertainty is a fundamental property of reality, the uttering of absolute truths is an arrogant aberration. The title also reflects nicely the relationship with related views as systems thinking and complexity theory, but unfortunately they are only superficially touched upon. And that is a missed opportunity, because, for example, the books that I read of the French sociologist Edgar Morin, clearly demonstrate that these ways of thinking can be very valuable. Nevertheless, this book is absolutely recommended reading!
For some implications of this book for the work of historians, see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Within that bandwidth, the 8 outstanding ‘constructivist’ scholars seem to hold very diverse opinions: the radical constructivists (cybernist von Foerster for instance) focus exclusively on the individual subject and absolutely don’t want to talk about a possible correspondence with an external reality; “everything is imagination, everyone creates his own truth” is the logic consequence; others are more nuanced and stress the importance of the social environment and conditioning of the subject (psychotherapist Helm Stierlin), making it possible to find common ground.
Personally, I was most attracted by the approach of the Chilean biologist Francisco J. Varela. He insists on the interactive relationship between subject and object, and so more or less takes an intermediate position: "My view is that subject and object determine and condition each other, that the knower and known arise in mutual dependence, that we neither represent an external world inside nor blindly and arbitrarily construct such a world and project it outside. My plea is for a middle way that avoids both the extremes or subjectivism and idealism, and the presumptions or realism and objectivism ". I also liked he takes into account an evolutionary aspect, in the conditioning of our way of observing reality; he seems the only one that observes ‘time’ as a relevant factor. Attached to this is a very practical approach in which Varela is very much inspired by the American pragmatism: truth is what works.
The interviewer, Bernhard Poerksen, again and agains asks his guests what the ethical implications are of the constructivist point of view, and that is good, because it shows that epistemology (the theory of knowledge) is not just an abstract, theoretical game, but has deep effects on being and acting. Constructivism regularly is accused of pleading for a complete relativism, and I do understand why that is said, but from the conversations in this book it is clear that this accusation is unjustified: almost all interviewees stress the need for the 'construction' of common values.
The title of this book, "The Certainty of Uncertainty" is certainly a good choice because it reflects the ultimate consequence of Constructivism: uncertainty is a fundamental property of reality, the uttering of absolute truths is an arrogant aberration. The title also reflects nicely the relationship with related views as systems thinking and complexity theory, but unfortunately they are only superficially touched upon. And that is a missed opportunity, because, for example, the books that I read of the French sociologist Edgar Morin, clearly demonstrate that these ways of thinking can be very valuable. Nevertheless, this book is absolutely recommended reading!
For some implications of this book for the work of historians, see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Read
October 21, 2024A book about epistemology, at first glance, hasn’t much to offer to historians. And that is of course partly true. Historians stick their noses in primary and secondary sources, apply their critical methods and try to reconstruct the past in an impartial and coherent way, if possible just as it may have been. But I must not convince you that behind this seemingly "common sense" approach lies a positivist paradigm, of which a number of starting points can at least be questioned. And one of those starting points certainly has to do with epistemology: is there an external reality (in this case the past) and is it (objectively) knowable? This is one of the core questions of the theory of history, but unfortenately it is not discussed in this book.
Yet indirectly there is something in it for historians. After all, the connecting theme in this book is constructivism. If I summarize briefly, then that is the proposition that everything we know about reality is constructed, that the subject or observer always makes a representation, a construction of reality, and that that reality can never be approached as something that exists separately, but always in relation to the observer. That sounds pretty logical, until you become acquainted with some forms of radical constructivism. That says that everything is imaginary, that everything is constructed, and that it is not at all possible to say something about the object from a meta-point of view, independent from the observer. In short, constructivism amounts to a rejection of all metaphysics and ontology.
That all sounds very abstract and philosophical, and it is. But now apply this to the work of an historian and that is probably going to ring a bell (for that historian). "Every representation of the past is imaginary, is a construction, an objective representation of history is by definition impossible", where did we hear that before? Indeed, with the people of the cultural/linguistic turn, in the footsteps of Hayden White and the early Frank Ankersmit, and in their tracks a whole series of postmodernist historians. If you think about it for a moment, then it is striking how many similarities there are between these people and the radical constructivists, up to and including their thinking about truth, or at least the impossibility of really making true statements about reality, including those of past.
In my discussion of the work of Ankersmit (see https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I have already indicated that I can not follow these radical positions. Just like constructivism, postmodernism has been meritorious to show how problematic our relationship is with reality (how constructed), but both sometimes have turned into a radicalism that states that any true statement about past and present is impossible, or that all statements are equally true. An in my view, that clearly is an aberration. In the meantime, fortunately, we have already passed this stage in historiography (both White and Ankersmit have nuanced their early, radical positions). And from this book of Bernhard Poerksen I understand that also constructivism itself has become much more pragmatic after a radical phase.
Unfortunately, historians are not mentioned in this book. It is limited to cybernetics, cognitive psychologists, biologists, psychotherapists, and so on. But as said before, the similarities in evolution in all these sciences are great. Whatever we do, even scientifically (and we must do that), there’s always an amount of uncertainty, and we have to cope with that, the best we can. Just keep on doing our business, applying our methods in all transparency, and in dialogue with the sources and with other scientists, and always being conscious that our image of the past up to a certain point always is OUR image, and that of our group, society or times. Such humility would serve us all.
Yet indirectly there is something in it for historians. After all, the connecting theme in this book is constructivism. If I summarize briefly, then that is the proposition that everything we know about reality is constructed, that the subject or observer always makes a representation, a construction of reality, and that that reality can never be approached as something that exists separately, but always in relation to the observer. That sounds pretty logical, until you become acquainted with some forms of radical constructivism. That says that everything is imaginary, that everything is constructed, and that it is not at all possible to say something about the object from a meta-point of view, independent from the observer. In short, constructivism amounts to a rejection of all metaphysics and ontology.
That all sounds very abstract and philosophical, and it is. But now apply this to the work of an historian and that is probably going to ring a bell (for that historian). "Every representation of the past is imaginary, is a construction, an objective representation of history is by definition impossible", where did we hear that before? Indeed, with the people of the cultural/linguistic turn, in the footsteps of Hayden White and the early Frank Ankersmit, and in their tracks a whole series of postmodernist historians. If you think about it for a moment, then it is striking how many similarities there are between these people and the radical constructivists, up to and including their thinking about truth, or at least the impossibility of really making true statements about reality, including those of past.
In my discussion of the work of Ankersmit (see https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I have already indicated that I can not follow these radical positions. Just like constructivism, postmodernism has been meritorious to show how problematic our relationship is with reality (how constructed), but both sometimes have turned into a radicalism that states that any true statement about past and present is impossible, or that all statements are equally true. An in my view, that clearly is an aberration. In the meantime, fortunately, we have already passed this stage in historiography (both White and Ankersmit have nuanced their early, radical positions). And from this book of Bernhard Poerksen I understand that also constructivism itself has become much more pragmatic after a radical phase.
Unfortunately, historians are not mentioned in this book. It is limited to cybernetics, cognitive psychologists, biologists, psychotherapists, and so on. But as said before, the similarities in evolution in all these sciences are great. Whatever we do, even scientifically (and we must do that), there’s always an amount of uncertainty, and we have to cope with that, the best we can. Just keep on doing our business, applying our methods in all transparency, and in dialogue with the sources and with other scientists, and always being conscious that our image of the past up to a certain point always is OUR image, and that of our group, society or times. Such humility would serve us all.
June 12, 2016
This is an excellent, very readable collection of conversations with leading "constructivist" thinkers. A plus of this book is that it goes beyond the usual suspects such as Varela, Maturana and Von Foerster and introduces less familiar scholars and practitioners - such as Siegried Schmidt and Helm Stierlin - to English-reading audiences.
The intellectual horizon covered by this book is actually wider than constructivism, adding an interesting blend of systems thinking (with a waft of complexity science), philosophical pragmatism and phenomenology to the mix.
The philosophical thrust of most of these conversations is epistemological and ethical (i.e. the focus is on answering the questions "what is true?" and "what is good?"). However, the constructivist-pragmatist ethos that is represented in various hues by these thinkers shies away from any ontology, any reliance on an objective, external reality. The resulting worldview is very dynamic, acknowledging a mutual dependence between world and observer. Self and world are then conceptualised as emergent properties, recursively created through incessant interactions embedded in language. There is no Truth, but only many truths that perish and make way for other truths along this co-evolutionary path.
The acknowledgment of mutual dependence leads naturally to an ethos of communality and unescapable responsibility for each and every of one's actions. This modesty is very characteristic for (almost all of) the thinkers represented in this book. For example, Varela tells us that an intellectual stance defined by pragmatism ("truth is what works") and a mitigated constructivism ("the world is a (contingent) set of stable patterns emerging from interactions between subjects and objects") spontaneously leads to "a panorama of coexistence, a dialogical space". Maturana talks about "a space of common reflection, a sphere of co-operation."
Poerksen - at the time of writing a still young German academic researcher - conducts the interviews with great gusto and expertise. It seems he is not at all intimidated by the reputations and intellectual stature of his interlocutors. Poerksen prods, tickles, plays the devil's advocate and on occasion squarely and stridently disagrees with his counterparts. But his positions are always well researched and articulated. All this makes for engaging reading and leads the conversation into many fascinating themes.
This book is definitely recommended to anyone seeking an entertaining but serious introduction the fascinating, honest and humane intellectual space that emerges from the interaction between constructivism, pragmatism and systems science.
The intellectual horizon covered by this book is actually wider than constructivism, adding an interesting blend of systems thinking (with a waft of complexity science), philosophical pragmatism and phenomenology to the mix.
The philosophical thrust of most of these conversations is epistemological and ethical (i.e. the focus is on answering the questions "what is true?" and "what is good?"). However, the constructivist-pragmatist ethos that is represented in various hues by these thinkers shies away from any ontology, any reliance on an objective, external reality. The resulting worldview is very dynamic, acknowledging a mutual dependence between world and observer. Self and world are then conceptualised as emergent properties, recursively created through incessant interactions embedded in language. There is no Truth, but only many truths that perish and make way for other truths along this co-evolutionary path.
The acknowledgment of mutual dependence leads naturally to an ethos of communality and unescapable responsibility for each and every of one's actions. This modesty is very characteristic for (almost all of) the thinkers represented in this book. For example, Varela tells us that an intellectual stance defined by pragmatism ("truth is what works") and a mitigated constructivism ("the world is a (contingent) set of stable patterns emerging from interactions between subjects and objects") spontaneously leads to "a panorama of coexistence, a dialogical space". Maturana talks about "a space of common reflection, a sphere of co-operation."
Poerksen - at the time of writing a still young German academic researcher - conducts the interviews with great gusto and expertise. It seems he is not at all intimidated by the reputations and intellectual stature of his interlocutors. Poerksen prods, tickles, plays the devil's advocate and on occasion squarely and stridently disagrees with his counterparts. But his positions are always well researched and articulated. All this makes for engaging reading and leads the conversation into many fascinating themes.
This book is definitely recommended to anyone seeking an entertaining but serious introduction the fascinating, honest and humane intellectual space that emerges from the interaction between constructivism, pragmatism and systems science.
June 6, 2025
Very accessible introduction and exploration of constructivism as a theory of knowing
I loved this book. Each chapter is a conversation with an author which makes it a very accessible read on fascinating ideas.
I loved this book. Each chapter is a conversation with an author which makes it a very accessible read on fascinating ideas.
Read
March 25, 2018Just finished reading The Certainty of Uncertainty by Bernhard Poerksen and it was a very good read on Constructivism, ie. the only thing that seems certain is uncertainty as the title implies.
In the first chapter, Poerksen interviews Heinz von Foerster who’s opinion I probably like the most. Anyway worth a read in my view and a great find for me as I have been re-constructing for the last 33 years and only learned by reading this book that I could be called a constructivist.
So, Von Foerster suggests that the observer views the world through the lenses of distinctions such as right/wrong, good/bad, calm/angry, logic/illogical, reason/unreason or agree/disagree, etc etc. These are usually called dichotomies.
It seems to me that a way around this issue of polar views or distinctions and the conflict they can cause through dogma and absolute thinking, is by constructing a singular view.
We can do this by using right/not right, good/not good, calm/not calm, logic/non logic, reason/non reason or agree/not agree.This is just a slight tweak of the use of our language and thinking. With right, good, calm, logic, reason and agree being the object or absolutes or objective, that we presume or assume may exist, however are unknown to us as the subject or observer or subjective.
So, we are all in the state of not good, not right, not calm, non logic, non reason and not agree, but to different levels obviously, and we can use conversation for continually making sure where those level lie and letting our “non logic” stand to “non reason” for now…..maybe.
In the first chapter, Poerksen interviews Heinz von Foerster who’s opinion I probably like the most. Anyway worth a read in my view and a great find for me as I have been re-constructing for the last 33 years and only learned by reading this book that I could be called a constructivist.
So, Von Foerster suggests that the observer views the world through the lenses of distinctions such as right/wrong, good/bad, calm/angry, logic/illogical, reason/unreason or agree/disagree, etc etc. These are usually called dichotomies.
It seems to me that a way around this issue of polar views or distinctions and the conflict they can cause through dogma and absolute thinking, is by constructing a singular view.
We can do this by using right/not right, good/not good, calm/not calm, logic/non logic, reason/non reason or agree/not agree.This is just a slight tweak of the use of our language and thinking. With right, good, calm, logic, reason and agree being the object or absolutes or objective, that we presume or assume may exist, however are unknown to us as the subject or observer or subjective.
So, we are all in the state of not good, not right, not calm, non logic, non reason and not agree, but to different levels obviously, and we can use conversation for continually making sure where those level lie and letting our “non logic” stand to “non reason” for now…..maybe.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews