Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science: Logic, Strategies, Methods” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: Umpleby’s approach to second-order science is top-down, and as such, fails to distinguish the cognitive mechanisms that provide the direct enacted link between such science and constructivism. When the idea of “ceteris paribus” holds little meaning to the examined situation, we are in the realm of second-order science, or Science 2. Only Science 2 can deal with emergence, volition, and reflexive anticipation. These three properties are how constructivism gets enacted and provide the foundation upon which Science 2 inquiries rest.
Lissack M. R. (2014) Second-order science is enacted constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 35–37. http://constructivist.info/10/1/035
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.