RESPONSES AND REPLIES Strong Constructivism — from a Sociologist's Point of View: A Personal Addendum to Sismondo's Paper

A Reconciliation for Constructivism? As a labelled constructivist, I turned with pleasure to Sismondo's paper, 1 expecting it to instruct me in what I was labelled for, and hoping to learn something about constructivism's variants and wrinkles. I was not disappointed. The field badly needed a first review and Sismondo's is a good one; it is informative about various brands of constructivism, and expert in pointing its fingers at sore spots. Sismondo is not passing by distinctions which have become important in the field and which are usually conflated, like that between constructivism (which one could call constructionism) and social constructivism. He realizes that constructivism has been reinvented in science studies rather than taken over from sociological precursors like Berger and Luckmann, and in many ways constitutes a different doctrine altogether. And he seems sympathetic at least to some of the challenges constructivism has posed, to the point of wishing to reconcile constructivism with empiricism and realism. However, Sismondo's paper also puts into focus disagreements and differences in understanding between those who have been associated with constructivism and those who have not. To be sure, some of these differences are of the kind that one might be able to work out with a critic like Sismondo over dinner, but they are irritating nevertheless. For example, the desire which Sismondo manifests to reconcile constructivist science studies with more received views of science is one that puzzles me, not only in this author but also in others. Is what lies behind it the biblical mood of bringing home the sheep that has gone astray? What is constructivism supposed to be brought home to