Constructivism has been widely considered the most influential perspective in science education research for some decades, and has been the basis of widespread pedagogic advice in many educational contexts. Yet it has been claimed in this "Journal" that the philosophical basis of constructivist thought in chemical education is confused, and strongly associated with antiscientific thinking that is completely inconsistent with the working assumptions of professional chemists. It has been argued that constructivist pedagogy is inherently tied to the dangerous assumption that as all ideas are human constructions, there is no basis for preferring accepted scientific models to students' own alternative ideas. The present paper demonstrates that the constructivist position criticized in this "Journal" is a complete misrepresentation of mainstream constructivist thinking in science education. Furthermore, it is argued that the claim of philosophical confusion rests upon a false dichotomy between realism and relativism, whereas the actual philosophical position underpinning mainstream constructivism in chemical education is instrumentalism, which is not only consistent with the approach of many scientists, but offers a promising basis for challenging many difficulties students have in learning the subject.