Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: Connecting Umpleby’s article with Piaget and García’s genetic epistemology, I will argue that the revolution the former discerns is more comprehensive. Additionally, since the latter differ from cybernetic and radical traditions in their philosophical assumptions about society and its conditioning on knowledge, I will suggest that these assumptions must be considered to explain each constructivist program’s achievements and challenges.

ResumenEn este trabajo queremos indagar sobre algunas cuestiones epistemológicas que se discuten en torno al fenómeno del big data. Como principal herramienta de análisis epistemológico utilizamos a la noción de Marco Epistémico formulada por Piaget y García, y revisada por nosotros en trabajos más recientes, para problematizar los condicionamientos de los valores éticos y políticos, así como de otras regulaciones, en el desarrollo del conocimiento científico. Para ello, proponemos ordenar los debates que se registran en la literatura reciente sobre big (...) data a través de diversas dualidades, tales como dato/interpretación, automático/no-automático o causalidad/correlación, en torno a las cuales vamos a argumentar que es posible pensar dos marcos epistémicos específicos tendientes a la escisión de estos términos o a su integración. Abogando por esta última manera de focalizar los debates, hacia el final del trabajo identificamos algunos desafíos epistemológicos de la investigación con big data, especialmente en las ciencias sociales computacionales.Palabras clave: big data; marco epistémico; constructivismo; computación. (shrink)

Context: Constructivist epistemology is not a doctrinal set of clear and consistent theses and assumptions but a movement full of tensions, with minimally integrated lines of discussions. Problem: This situation explains why it is so difficult to come up with a general definition of constructivist epistemology that could serve as a starting point to study its several research programs systematically and comparatively. Method: We compare the constructivist epistemologies of Jean Piaget, Ernst von Glasersfeld, Humberto Maturana, and Niklas Luhmann regarding tensions (...) between knowledge/reality and individual/society. Results: Our comparison leads to a general definition of constructivist epistemology as a heterogeneous movement problematizing certain dualities - such as subject/object, knowledge/reality, or individual/society - that have been shown to be central for epistemological inquiry. We argue that such dualisms can be used as dimensions for critical analysis, comparison, and discussion among the different research programs, and that, at the same time, they would allow us to analyze the general strategies characterizing such programs. The comparative and critical analysis of the programs by way of the aforementioned tensions results in an organized presentation highlighting their convergences, divergences, and singularities. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Subsystem Formation Driven by Double Contingency” by Bernd Porr & Paolo Di Prodi. Upshot: I acknowledge the value of Porr & Di Prodi’s piece for simulating Luhmann’s key process of subsystem formation and exploring how the concepts of “differentiation” and “binary code” relate to their model.