‘Wicked’ Philosophy – Philosophy of Science for Interdisciplinary Studies into Complex Problems

Authors

  • Coyan Tromp *

    Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94216, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55121/prr.v2i1.268

Keywords:

Complex Problems, Philosophy of Science, Interdisciplinarity, Sustainability Challenges, Challenge Based Learning, Complexity Thinking, Reflexivity

Abstract

To confront complex, ‘wicked’ problems such as climate change and migration, science is essential. But what type of knowledge can science provide and what do we actually need? What is the role of the philosophy of science in clarifying what knowledge is required and how to bring it together? To address these pivotal questions, this article reviews three scientific approaches: the empirical cycle (the logical empiricist model reigning in the natural sciences), the hermeneutic cycle (the interpretive model mainly used in the social sciences and humanities), and the model cycle (a more recently emerging approach). Each has its strengths and limitations in dealing with complex problems. We discuss opportunities to combine the various approaches to gain the most from them and provide illustrative examples of how students can be encouraged to understand and integrate the different perspectives they contain. To enhance this, we propose a ‘wicked’ philosophy of science that takes complexity thinking as an overarching framework; as it enables us to combine realist and constructionist perspectives, it offers a more nuanced approach to knowledge acquisition. Given the post-truth society we live in, the proposed ‘wicked’ philosophy also advocates a broader rationality concept that includes emotive and value-laden aspects, and a reflexive science that continually assesses its impacts. The ultimate aim is to equip students with critical, reflexive, and integrative thinking skills that help prepare them for interdisciplinary research on complex problems, thus cultivating a scientific approach that contributes to finding solutions to the pressing challenges we are currently facing.

References

[1] Revkin, A., 1992. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast. Abbeville Press: New York, NY, USA.

[2] Crutzen, P., Stoermer, E., 2000. The anthropocene, global change. IGBP Newsletter. 41, 17–18.

[3] Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., et al., 2009. Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(8), 2483–2489.

[4] Rockström, J., Steffen, W.L., Noone, K., et al., 2009 Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity, Ecology & Society. 14(2), 32.

[5] International Council for Science, 2010. Earth system science for global sustainability: The Grand challenges. International Social Science Council: Paris, France.

[6] Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., et al., 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation ofknowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability. 5(3–4), 420–431.

[7] Menken, S., Keestra, M., 2016. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

[8] Rittel, H., Webber, M., 1973. Planning problems are wicked. Polity. 4, 155–169.

[9] Homer-Dixon, T., 2011. Complexity Science. Shifting the trajectory of civilization. Oxford Leadership Journal. 2(1), 1–15.

[10] Smajgl, A., Ward, J., Pluschke, L., 2016. The water–food–energy Nexus – Realising a new paradigm. Journal of Hydrology. 533, 533–540.

[11] Morin, E., 2008. On Complexity. Hampton Press: Cresskill, NJ, USA.

[12] Nowotny, H., 2005. The increase of complexity and its reduction: Emergent interfaces between the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences. Theory, Culture & Society. 22(5), 15–31.

[13] Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., et al., 2006. Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics. 6, 119–128.

[14] Shackley, S., Wynne, B., Waterton, C., 1996. Imagine complexity: the past, present and future potential of complex thinking. Futures. 28, 201–225.

[15] Urry, J., 2005. The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society. 22(5), 1–14.

[16] Sterling, S., 2004. Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In: Corcoran, P.B., Wals, A.E.J. (eds.). Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 49–70.

[17] Sterling, S., 2007. From the push of fear, to the pull of hope: Learning by design. Southern African Journal of Environmental Education. 24, 30–34.

[18] Sterling, S., 2009. Sustainable education. In: Gray, D., Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, E. (eds.). Science, Society and Sustainability: Education and Empowerment for an Uncertain World. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 105–118.

[19] Sterling, S., 2011. Transformative learning and sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. 5, 17–33.

[20] Byrne, D., 2005. Complexity, configurations and cases. Theory, Culture & Society. 22(5), 95–111.

[21] Popper, K., 1963. Conjectures and Refutations – The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.: London, UK.

[22] Popper, K., 1970. Normal science and its dangers. In: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 51–58.

[23] Popper, K., 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK.

[24] Hempel, C-G., 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. In Hempel, C-G. (ed.). Aspects of Scientific Explanation, and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press: New York, NY, USA & Collier-MacMillan Limited: London, UK. pp. 331–496.

[25] Kuhn, T., 1970. Logic of discovery or psychology of research?. In: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 1–24.

[26] Habermas, J., 1988. On the Logic of the Social Sciences. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK. (in German).

[27] Giddens, A., 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson: London, UK.

[28] Kuhn, T., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.

[29] Quine, Von, W.O., 1953. Two dogmas of empiricism. In: Quine, Von, W.O. (ed.). From a Logical Point of View. Harper & Row: London, UK & New York, NY, USA. pp. 20–46.

[30] Ulanowicz, R., 2009. Third Window: Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin. Templeton Foundation Press: West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

[31] Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, USA.

[32] Latour, B., 1993. We have Never been Modern. Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, USA.

[33] Gadamer, H-G. Marshall, D.G., 1960. Truth and Method. Bloomsburry: London, UK. (in German).

[34] Foucault, M., 1971. Orders of discourse. Social Science Information. 10(2), 7–30.

[35] Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punish. Vintage: New York, NY, USA.

[36] Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge. Harvester: Brighton, UK.

[37] Lyotard, J-F., 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK.

[38] Nersessian, N., 1992. In the Theoretician’s Laboratory: Thought Experimenting as Mental Modeling. Proceedings of The Philosophy of Science Association. 2, 291–301.

[39] Brown, J.R., 2004. Why thought experiments transcend empiricism. In: Hitchcock, C. (ed.). Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Blackwell: Oxford, UK. pp. 23–43.

[40] Beisbart, C., 2012. How can computer simulations produce new knowledge?. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2, 395–434.

[41] Batty, M., Xie, Y., 1997. Possible urban automata. Environment and Planning B – Planning and Design. 24, 275–292.

[42] Morrison, M., Morgan, M., 1999. Models as mediating instruments. In: Morrison, M., Morgan, M. (eds.). Models as Mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 10–37.

[43] Grüne-Yanoff, T., Weirich, P., 2010. The philosophy and epistemology of simulation. A review. Simulation & Gaming. 41, 20–50.

[44] Bryman, A., 2004. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[45] Lakatos, I., 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[46] Puig de la Bellacasa, M., 2015. Making time for soil: Technoscientific futurity and the pace of care. Social Studies of Science. 45(5), 691–716.

[47] Bhaskar, R., 1989. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Verso: London, UK.

[48] Fay, B., 1996. Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.

[49] Tromp, C., 2018. Wicked Philosophy – Philosophy of Science and Vision Development for Complex Problems. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

[50] Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press, Boston, MA, USA. (in German).

[51] Toulmin, S., 1990. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. The Free Press: New York, NY, USA.

[52] Toulmin, S., 2001. Return to Reason. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[53] Davis, E., 2017. Post-Truth. Why We Have Reached Peak Bullshit and What We Can Do About It. Little Brown: London, UK.

[54] d’Ancona, M., 2017. Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. Ebury Publishing: London, UK.

[55] McIntyre, L., 2018. Did postmodernism lead to post-truth?. In McIntyre, L. (ed.). Post-Truth. MIT Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 123–149.

[56] Lakoff, G., 2010. Moral politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.

[57] Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.(in German).

[58] Beck, U., Giddens, A., Lash, S., 1994. Reflexive Modernization. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK.

[59] Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C., 2011. Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic development. Sustainability Science. 6, 203–218.

[60] Barth, M., 2015. Implementing sustainability in higher education. Learning in an age of transformation. Routledge: London, UK & New York, NY, USA.

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (June 2025)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Coyan Tromp

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.