Abstract

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