Explanation is the name for both the process we use to answer questions raised by observed ambiguities and for the conclusion we offer others. This divergence hints at the many conflicting approaches used to create our contemporary understanding of explanation. Modes of Explanation is the first book in decades to attempt to bring these conflicting approaches together and to offer a compelling narrative to explore how those conflicts can converge. In May 2013, fifty philosophers of science, cognitive scientists, systems scientists, (...) cyberneticists, semioticians, and humanities scholars gathered for three full days of debate. These scholars - including the contributors to this volume - compared insights into a variety of conceptions of explanation and their associated worldviews. Through examples such as the creationism/evolution debate, this volume illustrates the major issues regarding explanation through the dual lenses of scientific realism and pragmatic constructivism. Modes of Explanation is about how we make sense of, and create results in, our world. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Cybernetics, Reflexivity and Second-Order Science” by Louis H. Kauffman. Upshot: One of cybernetics most confusing and least understood concepts is that of the eigenform. With this article Kauffman has enabled a clear understanding of the concept as “the coherence of a situation that allows a distinction to be made.”.

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: Buried in the jargon of constructivism and cybernetics lies the essence of what second-order cybernetics can do for its practitioners. The labels and names get in the way; to move forward we must refocus on that essence - which is to ask always how context matters.

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. (shrink)