Maybe I was unclear. The part that I meant a constructivist would disagree was the subjective part: "This kind of proof (existence of a counterexample) provides more insight into the problem than simply finding a counterexample."
I find it hard to believe that a constructivist would agree that across the board, proof of existence of X is more interesting than a construction of X. Isn't that the point!?
I find it hard to believe that a constructivist would agree that across the board, proof of existence of X is more interesting than a construction of X. Isn't that the point!?