2014Constructivist FoundationsRequires access

Do We Need a Second-Order Science?

Mark Amadeus Notturno

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

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 …

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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 …

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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 …

Key concepts: Neurophenomenology, Enactivism, Autopoiesis, Constructivism (international relations), Epistemology, Order (exchange), Affect (linguistics), Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Do We Need a Second-Order Science? — Research Paper | ScholarLens