What is Knowledge?

The radical constructivist's two main claims are as follows: Knowledge is not received but actively built up by an individual. Mental processes change and work to adjust the experiential world, not to realize ontological reality.

Ontological reality contains what 'really exists', it is a question of metaphysics. The way that radical constructivist theory protects itself from being called solipsistic is by remaining agnostic to any metaphysical claims. Solipsism is based off of Descartes claim: I think therefore I am. (I can only know I exist). Solipsism is philosophical suicide because it is ridiculous to think that you only exist and everything else may very well be a figment of your imagination.

Radical constructivist theory stresses the importance of perception, how an individual perceives reality to be. Reality does not exist independently of its perceivers. Knowledge is not knowledge until someone perceives it as that way. There is no raw knowledge only interpretations of it. This is why in radical constructivist teaching, the teacher must make a cognitive map of how their student interprets information, because they must understand their reality.

In class on Wednesday, Professor Johnson talked about the theories of radical constructivism and realists. He stated that knowledge = justified/ truth/ belief. Our knowledge consists of what we believe is justified and true. For realists, when a new belief matches an already existing belief, the new belief is true. Yet, for the radical constructivist when a new belief matches a previously existing belief, the new belief is viable, not true.

Questions: Are justification, truth, and belief necessary or sufficient conditions for knowledge? Since radical constructivist theory does not believe something can be true, does that mean that they do not have valid knowledge? Can the information in their repertoire only be 2/3 knowledge?