Learning and Construction of Knowledge

Running head: LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
Learning and Construction of Knowledge
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
In this essay the strengths and limitations of creation of knowledge in the paradigm of
social science is being discussed. In the pre-enlightenment era, methods employed in social
sciences were modelled after natural sciences. For instance, “sex” was considered as
sociological category and it referred to one morphological entity (Hird, 2004). The shift from
“gender” to “sex” was achieved in the post-enlightenment era witnessing the slow epistemic
shift from revelation-based knowledge to scientific-based knowledge. Owing to historical
change, there has been major paradigmatic shifts in the field of social sciences. From the
positivistic paradigm to interpretative then there are epistemological shift that include the
feminist and critical methodology. The history of social science has witnessed number of
upheavals that have brought change in the epistemic standpoint of one viewing the range of
social reality. In this essay, the various nuances involving the pros and cons of the knowledge
creation of social sciences will be discussed.
In the diverse paradigms of social science, initiatives have been taken to construct
knowledge and reality in a well-defined format (Nakkeeran, 2010). However, the grounds on
which knowledge in constructed in social science contains both the element of positivist and
interpretevist philosophy. Thus, it makes social science an oxymoron that enjoys the dual
status of verstehen and scientism (Gordon, 2002). Reality is considered as something that is
independent of one’s volition and knowledge refers to the understanding of that phenomenon.
Thus, knowledge is something that can stand the test of time to reach the ultimate status of
truth, which implies that knowledge needs to be true, vice versa. However, in reality all forms
of knowledge do not stand the test of time and sometimes vary from person to person. These
forms of knowledge do not exist in the concrete material forms sometimes they exist in forms
of ideas, thoughts and believe. From the post-enlightenment era the grounds of measuring
these forms of knowledge has remained contentious, so is the status of social sciences.
According to the principle of Vienna Circle positivists, social science disciplines adopt the

LEARNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
unity of science thesis. Social science and the methods of measuring social phenomenon has
always been modelled after natural science model. Thus, the intricacies involved in the social
reality of life could not be taken into account.
According to Berger and Luckmann, reality has the intrinsic nature of being socially
relative (Berger and Luckmann, 1971). Social relativity shuns any form of universal or
absolute form of knowledge. On the other hand, Probalilism advocates on the possibility of
many future events, suggesting on the line that the nature of universe is not deterministic but
probabilistic. Future is constituted with the ontological and physical chances of possibilities,
because of this probabilism requires an instant where there will be an absolute version of
truth. This is to divide the reality of “one past from many alternative possible futures”.
Reality can be derived in many forms, one in its empirical version and the other in its logical
format. The responsibility of social science is to get as close to the reality as possible.
Realities and the existing paradigm of knowledge cannot be reduced to the rational and
logical ground because unlike natural sciences, a daffodil does not choose to bloom or an
apple does not decide to fall. Human are involved as the subject matter of social science
disciplines and they cannot be studied only on their level of actions. As Max Weber has
rightly stated that, the interpretation of their actions needs to be brought under the scanner of
sociological enquiry. Thus, he advocated on building up a new framework of enquiry mainly
known as Verstehen, which implies the interpretivist understanding of social reality. In this
way, he denies the articulation of unity of science. Karl popper another social scientist
insisted that social reality could best be understood if “situational analysis” is practiced. This
is because social world is empirically and logically experienced, which means that the objects
are subjectively experienced. This argument uncovers the gamut of subject domain, which
demands to be experienced, where emotional and the cognitive variables of human plays a
dominant role. This altogether makes the reality subjective and relative. Owing to this set of