We need to draw a clear line between ontology and epistemology. Ontology regards the existence of facts and objects, while epistemology regards whether we can know them or not, and if objectively or subjectively.

Ontologically, either you're a realist or an anti-realist. Either you accept facts are real independently of the "human mind" (realist), i.e. objective, or you accept that reality is only subjective (anti-realist). Ontological theories are based on either one or the other. In ontology, relativism, as you can infer, is the skeptic's favorite approach to anti-realism.

Constructivism, on the other hand, is an epistemological position. I am not aware of mr. Crotty's take, but constructivism can either be realist or anti-realist. Realist in that, e.g., we have a biologically limited manner to understand reality and we gradually know more and more as we research, and anti-realist in that, e.g., we build our own reality based on our individual experiences. There are a great deal of variations, but scientific constructivism as proposed by Kuhn (Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962 is a must-read if you intend to verse regarding this subject) is a realist approach in that understanding of reality is a cooperative endeavour through paradigm shifts as scientifical revolutions.

But epistemology is a vast field, and there are a great deal of theories regarding each of the aforementioned positions.

Realism and relativism are undoubtedly the two most commonly used ontological positions. To get some background on these two positions, I would start with the Wikipedia entries on: Naive Realism, Scientific Realism, and Relativism.

As for where Constructionism fits into this system, most people would consider it a form of relativism. In the social sciences, it is often contrasted with Post-Positivism as a form of realism.

I'm not all that familiar with Crotty, but I know that he identified with pragmatism (e.g., William James and John Dewey), which generally takes an agnostic view towards ontological issues. In particular, rather than worrying about the existence of a "real world" that exists outside of human experience, the pragmatists focus on a world of actions and consequences -- where the key question would be what difference it makes to act one way rather than another.

An ontological position refers to the researcher relationship with the reality of his study. For example, whether, he / considers reality to be independent of his knowledge, or whether he particpates in the construction of that reality.

There are four basic philosophies of science: Logical positivism, Relativism, pragmatism and realism. Ontologically speaking, realism and logical positivism both view reality as objective, i.e. independent of our cognition; while pragmatism and relativism regard reality as subjective, though their ontologicla positions are somewhat different. Pragmatism considers that reality places constraints on human action, while in relativism, reality is socially constructed.

Realist ontology is objective

Realist epistemology is subjectivist

Relativist ontology is subjective

Relativist epistemology is subjective

We need to draw a clear line between ontology and epistemology. Ontology regards the existence of facts and objects, while epistemology regards whether we can know them or not, and if objectively or subjectively.

Ontologically, either you're a realist or an anti-realist. Either you accept facts are real independently of the "human mind" (realist), i.e. objective, or you accept that reality is only subjective (anti-realist). Ontological theories are based on either one or the other. In ontology, relativism, as you can infer, is the skeptic's favorite approach to anti-realism.

Constructivism, on the other hand, is an epistemological position. I am not aware of mr. Crotty's take, but constructivism can either be realist or anti-realist. Realist in that, e.g., we have a biologically limited manner to understand reality and we gradually know more and more as we research, and anti-realist in that, e.g., we build our own reality based on our individual experiences. There are a great deal of variations, but scientific constructivism as proposed by Kuhn (Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962 is a must-read if you intend to verse regarding this subject) is a realist approach in that understanding of reality is a cooperative endeavour through paradigm shifts as scientifical revolutions.

But epistemology is a vast field, and there are a great deal of theories regarding each of the aforementioned positions.

Luca Ignasi makes a very good point, and it fits with a little more reading I did on Crotty. He apparently feels that ontological positions don't matter so long as you have a clear epistemological position, which in his case would be strongly anti-realist.

In other words, if all knowledge is subjectively constructed, then the "true" nature of reality doesn't matter, because we can never get outside our socially based constructions.

Another variation on this position are known as Critical Realism, which accepts a realist ontology, but pairs that with an anti-realist epistemology.

A good source to read about this from a philosopher are the early chapters in Ian Hacking's collection of essays, "The Social Construction of What?"

Worth reading is Roy Bhaskar's critical realism offering a relatively new ontological position that argues for a stratified reality.

This was an excellent discussion, thank you all.

Excellent

thank you all

very ueful thread. thank you

Excellent! Thank you all.

Hi all, I'm so delighted to have read your different educative contributions to the above philosophical topic on: Ontology and Epistemology.

As a proponent of "Triangulation" or "Crystallisation" Approach to Research, I was wondering if we could please, extend our narrative to shed some more light on the Philosophy of "Pragmatism"

In general, pragmatism proposes a totally different approach to philosophy of knowledge that rejects the value of versions that rely on ontology and epistemology. Thus, rather than asking questions about the nature of truth, it would concentrate on what difference it makes to act one way rather than another.

I have an article on this topic that you can find here on RG:

Article Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research

@David L Morgan, Many thanks Sir for your insightful and yet simplistic explanation.

I think foundationalism/Objectivism/realism can be considered as broader ontological positions. According to Marsh and Furlong all these terms share similar connotations. It deals with one singe truth. As Salman patel indicated this approach commonly follow the quantitative research methods.

What an interesting thread.

Thank you all for these interesting discussion. I'm still struggling with the different paradigms, approaches, designs etc. Going back to the discussion, what is an subjectivist ontology with an inductive epistemology. Is this crotty? Anti-realist?

really helpful

Interesting, lots of thanks.

The main ontological positions are Materialism and Idealism. Anyway, realism and Materialism seem to be on the same path because they all believe that the object or matter precedes thinking or consciousness and that there's an objective reality out there. Relativism isn't mainly an ontological position but its drawn from Idealism where the thinking precedes the object and reality is as a result of our constructions and interpretations. This makes reality relative.

Greatly benefited by these discussions!

“…The main ontological positions are Materialism and Idealism.…”

- what are Materialism and Idealism, and the mainstream philosophy at all, see the attached PDF;

and papers that are linked in the PDF.

Besides at least a couple of last SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Philosophy_a_Science_If_yes_what_kind_of_Science#view=5e9376623aef892bee6c2189

- are relevant in this case as well,

- and, as an useful reading, it is desirable to read a few SS posts, starting from the March 26 post, begins as “Dear Dragoljub,…” in the short thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_matter_energy_and_information

Cheers

Some examples where the indeed philosophy is applied to some fundamental problems in Matter and consciousness see the last SS posts in the threads https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory#view=5eaff51666260367307b4ce7

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_reasonable_alternative_to_the_theory_of_the_expanding_universe#view=5eb16a06211ed5479844eb70

Cheers

Two last SS post in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_it_mean_to_exist#view=5eb78210dabe5d69cb1e5366

- are useful for understanding – what the indeed philosophical SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, is.

As well as it is useful in this case to read some discussion of the conception on the RG

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness/comments?focusedCommentId=5ded35bacfe4a777d4f8a648&sldffc=0

Cheers

The last SS post, and links in the post, in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Philosophy_a_Science_If_yes_what_kind_of_Science#view=5eb88ab7fd72a458e06538db

- are relevant to this thread problem.

Cheers

The last SS post, and links in the post, in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_rational_thought_exist_without_language#view=5ebaab2f2cbb53403175dc37

- is relevant to this thread problem.

Cheers

The last SS posts in the threads

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_matter_energy_and_information#view=5ebbf8b2e98ba42e424fb546

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_next_paradigm_shift_in_respect_to_neuroscience

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_mathematically_model_consciousness#view=5ebbd1cef29a0c2fa845599b

- are relevant to this thread question, a least by two points: the posts relate to ontology of consciousness, and are useful at understanding of the indeed philosophy.

Cheers

I guess you should also ask yourself if you truly believe that the things (reality) are constructed by our interpretations. This is the constructivist ontology, to my mind. Ontology is how you perceive the things, how you think they were born here in this universe. I guess it's inseparable from you yourself as a researcher.

[if somebody] “….truly believe that the things (reality) are constructed by our interpretations. This is the constructivist ontology, to my mind…”

- that is indeed a next typical evidently nonsensical – for any normal human - mainstream philosophical proposition. “Reality” is constructed without any relation to any humans’ interpretation. However indeed, corresponding rather popular mainstream philosophical doctrine “constructivist ontology”, in spite of that for any normal human it is, again, evident absurdity, exists quite legitimately in this philosophy.

However that

“…Ontology is how you perceive the things….”

- is incorrect even in the mainstream philosophy, that is the subject of epistemology. That is another thing, that in the mainstream philosophy the corresponding philosophers “solve” this problem seems without understanding that to answer on this question, including in every concrete case of “perceiving” concrete things, it is necessary before to know – what these things are?, what is who perceives? And why the perceiver perceives at all?

That are ontological problems, which cannot and aren’t answered in the mainstream; and so any epistemological problem principally is unresolvable.

What is really so, and, in spite of that in epistemology were/are published innumerous “solutions”, these solutions have “senses”, which haven’t – and cannot have principally, any real senses; besides some quite banal “solutions” as, say, publications about the “scientific method”, which is known practically for any multicellular living being on Earth completely, and for, say, bacteria essentially, which constantly study their environment, say, aimed at to find a food.

The last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_next_paradigm_shift_in_respect_to_neuroscience is useful to understand the ontology of the consciousness;

Besides, to understand – what is the SS&VT ““The Information as Absolute” conception”, to read a few SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_it_mean_to_exist#view=5ebe270532cd9b7b284166e3

- is useful as well.

As to

“…..how you think they were born here in this universe….”

- any rational answers on this question doesn’t, and cannot principally, exist in the mainstream philosophy. Though a rational model, which is based on the conception above exists, see, for example, SS comments to some official physics papers in https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/5e3f8ee0cfe4a740247f52ac , and

https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Possibilities-and-Limitations-of-Application-of-Theory-of-Chaos-and-Complexity-in-Management-of-Organisations/update/5ea6656fc005cf0001867ea2

Cheers

The today SS posts in the threads https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_modern_approach_to_cosmology_fundamentally_flawed is relevant to this thread’s question.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_it_mean_to_exist#view=5ec445b8564f61148a6ec736

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_next_paradigm_shift_in_respect_to_neuroscience#view=5ec3fa026c7b6012ff2adfed

- are next examples how the indeed philosophy helps indeed sciences.

Cheers

The SS comment to some official paper how physics “measure consciousness” in the Hossein’s project list

list https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Possibilities-and-Limitations-of-Application-of-Theory-of-Chaos-and-Complexity-in-Management-of-Organisations/update/5ecbe4f3f6eedf00018a0a58 , and

a couple of the last SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_modern_approach_to_cosmology_fundamentally_flawed

- are examples how the indeed philosophy helps science.

To read two last SS comments to some RG member’s comment to the paper with the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics/comments?focusedCommentId=5ec852398c906400015a33dc&sldffc=0

- which [the model] is based on the “The Information as Absolute” conception, are useful for understanding – what are the conception and the model

Cheers

The last SS posts in the threads https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_mathematically_model_consciousness

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_next_paradigm_shift_in_respect_to_neuroscience#view=5ed1f218faeec32f930b8a0f

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_a_gravitational_field_have_energy_density_like_an_electric_field#view=5eceb0ef33aaab3de1093503

https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_universe_conscious#view=5ed24fd6a3a6c4528f0f08b2

- are next examples how indeed philosophy helps sciences.

Cheers

The today SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory#view=5ed54f14f7476164536b2708

- is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers