I think there are three things here.
- The objective nature of Knowledge--positivist, postpositivist, anti-positivist...
I didn't think that Connectivity demanded an epistemological stance?
- How we may learn--instructivist, constructivist,...
As George has instructed, Connectivism doesn't specify whether learning is pushed or pulled. Rather it is about evolving relationships and discourse between people and other agents of knowledge. It is better to learn how to access knowledge than to just try to internalise it all.
Today I got somebody in to clean our carpets. Through experience and anecdotes, I have come to know enough to choose between steam and dry cleaning, to recognise competent work and to pay a market price, deflecting the usual up-sell of the exclusive (!) spot cleaner. The serviceman runs the machines, I trust his expertise. He depends on me for entry into the house, instructions on which rooms to do and where to get water. He trusts me to pay him when he is finished the work. The knowledge domain is distributed and negotiated.
- Knowledge and power
As I implied earlier, I perceived Connectivism as a critical theory (ie. about knowledge and power). This suits my politics, but not everyone's. George has responded by providing justification for people to step back from a compulsive "need to know/control everything" mentality. But knowledge and personal identity are so enmeshed.