Scientific Method, Complexity and Phenomenology in Human Knowledge

The classical scientific method, with its deterministic approach, falls short of capturing human complexity. While 20th-century philosophers critiqued this method, their arguments remained philosophical. A critique grounded in empirical science is needed, and the complexity paradigm, emphasizing autopoiesis—manifested through will, moral choices, and intrinsic motivation—offers the most appropriate perspective. Integrating complexity-based experimental studies with phenomenology provides an adequate framework for understanding human beings. Drawing on Varela's neurophenomenology concept of 'third person', the author develops a new epistemological model: 'a third person, studying a double first person'.

Study at a glance

Abstract

ABSTRACT The classical scientific method, particularly its deterministic approach, encounters limitations when attempting to fully capture the complexities of human beings. Although many 20th‐century philosophers criticized this method, their arguments were primarily philosophical. I see a need for a critique of the scientific method grounded in empirical science itself. The complexity paradigm offers the most appropriate perspective for this purpose. This paradigm emphasizes the inherent proactivity (‘autopoiesis’ or ‘creation from within’) that manifests through will, moral choices and intrinsic motivation—aspects that are difficult to comprehend using the tools of the scientific method. I argue that integrating complexity‐based experimental studies with phenomenology provides an adequate framework for understanding human beings. To support and exemplify this argument, I draw upon Varela's neurophenomenology concept of ‘third person’ and develop it into a new epistemological model named ‘a third person, studying a double first person’.