Foundations of Science

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 557–573 | Cite as

Second Order Science: Examining Hidden Presuppositions in the Practice of Science

Article

Abstract

The traditional sciences have always had trouble with ambiguity. To overcome this barrier, ‘science’ has imposed “enabling constraints”—hidden assumptions which are given the status of ceteris paribus. Such assumptions allow ambiguity to be bracketed away at the expense of transparency. These enabling constraints take the form of uncritically examined presuppositions, which we refer to throughout the article as “uceps.” The meanings of the various uceps are shown via their applicability to the science of climate change. Second order science examines variations in values assumed for these uceps and looks at the resulting impacts on related scientific claims. Second order science reveals hidden issues, problems and assumptions which all too often escape the attention of the practicing scientist (but which can also get in the way of the acceptance of a scientific claim). This article lays out initial foundations for second order science, its ontology, methodology, and implications.

Keywords

Model Ambiguity Metaphysics Dependence Science 

References

  1. Achenbach, J. (2015). Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem. The Washington Post (August 27).Google Scholar
  2. Arló-Costa, H., & Helzner, J. (2010). Ambiguity aversion: The explanatory power of indeterminate probabilities. Synthese, 172(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 83–99.Google Scholar
  4. Aufenvenne, P., Egner, H., & von Elverfeldt, K. (2014). On climate change research, the crisis of science and second-order science. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 120–129.Google Scholar
  5. Belluz, J. (2015). Scientists replicated 100 recent psychology experiments. More than half of them failed. Vox Science and Health August 27.Google Scholar
  6. Bhattacharjee, J. (2013). The Mind of a Con Man. The New York Times (April 26).Google Scholar
  7. Blake, A. (2015). Americans’ increasing distrust of scienceAnd not just on climate change. Washington Post, January 30.Google Scholar
  8. Bojanowski, A. (2014). Climate change debate: A famous scientist becomes a skeptic. der Spiegel, May 12.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, N. (2014). Cholesterol guidelines: Myth vs. truthwhat you need to know. Huffington Post, February 1.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, R. (2009). Thinking about design: An historical perspective. In A. Meijers et al. (Eds.) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Book 9) (pp. 409–454). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  11. Derman, E. (2011). Models. Behaving. Badly: Why confusing illusion with reality can lead to disaster, on Wall Street and in life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.Google Scholar
  13. Dinan, S. (2015). Climate change is real and caused by humans, majority of senators believe. Washington Times, January 25.Google Scholar
  14. Dummett, M. (1981). The Interpretation of Frege’s Philosophy. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Empson, W. (1910/1966). Seven types of ambiguity. New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
  16. Ernstene, A. C., et al. (1961). Dietary fat and its relation to heart attacks and strokes. In Report by the Central Committee for Medical and Community Program of the American Heart Association, Circulation, 23.Google Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, F. S. (1945). The crack-up. New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
  18. Frege, G., 1948 [1892]. Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 53, 209–230.Google Scholar
  19. Gooding, D., & Addis, T. (2008). Modelling experiments as mediating models. Foundations of Science, 13, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, tr. William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The grand design. New York City: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  22. Hickman, L., & Randerson, J. (2009). Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists. The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 27 July, 2010.Google Scholar
  23. Hugo, V. (2005). The history of a crime. Mondial: Watson Square.Google Scholar
  24. Husserl, E. (1913/1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophyFirst Book: General introduction to a pure phenomenology (F. Kersten, Nijhoff Trans.). Hague: NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  25. Keys, A. (1970). Coronary heart disease in seven countries. Circulation, 41(suppl 1), 1–211.Google Scholar
  26. Keys, A. (1980). Seven countries: A multivariate analysis of death and coronary heart disease. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kromhout, D., et al. (1989). Food consumption patterns in the 1960s in seven countries. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 49, 889–894.Google Scholar
  28. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence, J. (2014). Genes influence response to statins, research finds. The Pharmaceutical Journal. doi:10.1211/PJ.2014.20067031 Google Scholar
  30. Lissack, M., & Graber, A. (2014). Modes of explanation: Affordances for action and prediction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lupton, D. (2013). Risk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Lynas, M. (2015). Even in 2015, the public doesn’t trust scientists. The Washington Post, January 30.Google Scholar
  33. Millner, A., Dietz, S., & Heal, G. (2013). Scientific ambiguity and climate policy. Environmental & Resource Economics, 55(1), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morin, E. (2008). On complexity (Advances in systems theory, complexity, and the human sciences). New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mueller, K. (2014). Towards a general methodology for second-order science. Systemics, Cybernetics And Informatics, 12(5), 33–42.Google Scholar
  36. Muller, R. (2012). The conversion of a climate-change skeptic. New York Times, July 28.Google Scholar
  37. Nye, A. (1990). Words of power: A feminist reading of the history of logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716.Google Scholar
  39. Planck, M. (1968). Scientific autobiography and other papers. Greenwood: Westport.Google Scholar
  40. Popper, K. (1959/1974). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  41. Riegler, A., & Mueller, K. (2014). Special issue of on second-order science. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  42. Rosen, R. (1985). Anticipatory systems. Oxford: Pergamon press.Google Scholar
  43. Slife, B., & Williams, R. (1995). What’s behind the research: Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taleb, N. (2007). The Black Swan. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Umpleby, S. (2014). Second-order science: Logic, strategies, methods. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 15–23.Google Scholar
  46. Vaihinger, H. (1924/1911). 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
  47. Whoriskey, P. (2015). The US government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol. Washington Post, February 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Study of Coherence and EmergenceBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations