Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Second Order Science Reveals About Scientific Claims: Incommensurability, Doubt, and a Lack of Explication

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The traditional sciences often bracket away ambiguity through the imposition of “enabling constraints”—making a set of assumptions and then declaring ceteris paribus. These enabling constraints take the form of uncritically examined presuppositions or “uceps.” Second order science reveals hidden issues, problems and assumptions which all too often escape the attention of the practicing scientist. These hidden values—precisely because they are hidden and not made explicit—can get in the way of the public’s acceptance of a scientific claim. A conflict in understood meaning—between the scientist’s restricted claims and the public’s broader understanding of those same claims can result in cognitive dissonance or the equivalent of the Mori Uncanny Valley. Scientists often react to these differences by claiming “incommensurability” between their restricted claim and the public’s understanding. Second order science, by explicating the effects of variations in values assumed for these uceps and associated impacts on related scientific claims, can often moot these assertions of incommensurability and thereby promote greater scientific understanding. This article explores how second order science can address issues of public doubt regarding the scientific enterprise using examples from medicine, diet and climate science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • BICEP2/Keck, Planck Collaborations. (2015). A joint analysis of BICEP2/keck array and planck data, as submitted to physical review letters arXiv:1502.00612

  • Brookfield, S. D. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (33–49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D. (2008). Narrative explanation and its malcontents. History and Theory, 47(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, W.S. (2003) Never Give In! The best of Winston Churchills speeches. New York: Hyperion.

  • Deutsch, K. (1951). Mechanism, organism, and society: Some models in natural and social science. Philosophy of Science, 18(3), 230–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1950). Physics, philosophy, and scientific progress. Physics Today, 58(6), 46–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., & Infield, L. (1938). The evolution of physics: From early concepts to relativity and quanta. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Empson, W. (1910). Seven types of ambiguity. New York: New Directions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faye, J. (2014). Explanation revisited. In M. Lissack & A. Graber (Eds.), Modes of explanation: Affordances for action and prediction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. PNAS www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4/13593.abstract

  • Friedman, M. (Ed.). (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015). Americans politics and science issues. Washington: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D., & Addis, T. (2008). Modelling experiments as mediating models. Foundations of Science, 13, 17–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. (2010). Triumph and tragedy in Mudville: A lifelong passion for baseball. New York: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hari, J. (2015). Chasing the scream: The first and last days of the war on drugs. London: Bloomsbury USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The grand design. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter, D. (1996). Fluid concepts & creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutten, E. (1954). The role of models in physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4, 284–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison, R., Collins, K., & Wallis, P. (2015). Institutionalising social learning: Towards systemic and adaptive governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 53(Part B), 105–117.

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (2002). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M., Weiner, M., Huntington, S., & Almond, G. (1987). Understanding political development: An analytic study. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In A. Musgrave & I. Lakatos (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lissack, M. (2015). Second order science: Examining hidden presuppositions in the practice of science. Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-016-9483-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissack, M. (2016) Dealing with ambiguity—The ‘Black Box’ as a design choice, SheJi (forthcoming)

  • Lissack, M., & Graber, A. (2014). Modes of explanation: Affordances for Action and prediction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lissack, M., & Roos, J. (1999). The next common sense: Mastering corporate complexity through coherence. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louie, A. (2009). More than life itself: A synthetic continuation in relational biology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyte.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2013). Risk. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1988). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. In D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal, QC

  • Mooney, C. (2015) Americans are still scientifically illiterate—and scientists still need a PR team. The Washington Post.

  • Mori, M. (1970). The Uncanny Valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, K. (2014). Towards a general methodology for second-order science. Systemics, Cybernetics And Informatics, 12(5), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noe, A. (2012). Varieties of presence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., & Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a paradigmatic foundation for accounting practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(6), 733–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1996). Inevitable illusions: How mistakes of reason rule our minds. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleiderer, P. (2014). Chameleons: The misuse of theoretical models in finance and economics. http://stnfd.biz/v9YKB#finance.

  • Riegler, A. & Mueller, K. (2014). Special issue of on second-order science. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, P. (2014). Stellar activity masquerading as planets in the habitable zone of the M dwarf Gliese 581. Science, 345(6195), 440–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. (1985). Anticipatory systems. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. (2007). The Black Swan. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umpleby, S. (2014). Second-order science: Logic, strategies, methods. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaihinger, H. (1924). The philosophy of ‘as if’: A system of the theoretical, practical, and religious fictions of mankind (C.K. Ogden, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraasen, B. (2002). The empirical stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence, Boston, MA, USA

    Michael Lissack

Authors
  1. Michael Lissack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Lissack.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lissack, M. What Second Order Science Reveals About Scientific Claims: Incommensurability, Doubt, and a Lack of Explication. Found Sci 22, 575–593 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-016-9484-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-016-9484-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation