Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science of Interdisciplinary Research: A Polyocular Framework for Wicked Problems” by Hugo F. Alrøe & Egon Noe. Upshot: I critically assess Alrøe and Noe’s plea for a “second-order science of interdisciplinary research” from the perspective of a consistently naturalized philosophy of science, arguing that the latter precludes the “levels view” of science implied by the former. I also suggest we avoid the term “polyocularity” as it perpetuates the persistent bias toward vision in our scientific and philosophical understanding of human perception.
Callebaut W. (2014) Beyond a “levels view” of science. Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 79–80. http://constructivist.info/10/1/079
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.