Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science: Logic, Strategies, Methods” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: This article argues that we do not need a new scientific method or a “second-order science” to deal with the facts that the individual characteristics of observers may affect the nature and quality of their observations and that the application of scientific theories may affect the systems they describe. It also argues that Umpleby has not given us good reason to think that we do.

Citation

Notturno M. A. (2014) Do we need a second-order science? Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 23–26. http://constructivist.info/10/1/023

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.