Upshot: For communicating second-order science, von Foerster’s ethical imperative provides a viable starting point. Proceeding from this, we plead in favour of emphasising the common grounds of diverging scientific opinions and of various approaches in second-order science instead of focussing on the differences. This will provide a basis for communication and stimulate scientific self-reflection.

Context: This conceptual paper tries to tackle the advantages and the limitations that might arise from including second-order science into global climate change sciences, a research area that traditionally focuses on first-order approaches and that is currently attracting a lot of media and public attention. Problem: The high profile of climate change research seems to provoke a certain dilemma for scientists: despite the slowly increasing realization within the sciences that our knowledge is temporary, tentative, uncertain, and far from stable, the public expectations towards science and scientific knowledge are still the opposite: that scientific results should prove to be objective, reliable, and authoritative. As a way to handle the uncertainty, scientists tend to produce “varieties of scenarios” instead of clear statements, as well as reports that articulate different scientific opinions about the causes and dynamics of change (e.g., the IPCC. This might leave the impression of vague and indecisive results. As a result, esteem for the sciences seems to be decreasing within public perception. Method: This paper applies second-order observation to climate change research in particular and the sciences in general. Results: Within most sciences, it is still quite unusual to disclose and discuss the epistemological foundations of the respective research questions, methods and ways to interpret data, as research proceeds mainly from some version of realistic epistemological positions. A shift towards self-reflexive second-order science might offer possibilities for a return to a “less polarized” scientific and public debate on climate change because it points to knowledge that is in principle tentative, uncertain and fragmented as well as to the theory- and observation-dependence of scientific work. Implications: The paper addresses the differences between first-order and second-order science as well as some challenges of science in general, which second-order science might address and disclose. Constructivist content: Second-order science used as observation praxis (second-order observation) for this specific field of research.

Key words: Second-order science, climate change research, observation theory, theory-dependency, causality, production of knowledge.

As it seems, geographers have based their concept and understanding of the world on the assumption that it consists of diverse systems – this is revealed by the way they refer to the earth system, ecosystems, economic systems, social systems etc. as a matter of course. In consequence, modern systems theory might serve as a kind of background theory for an integrating approach of both geographies. By focusing on three basic aspects of Niklas LUHMANN’s theory – autopoiesis, form and observation –, it becomes evident that his social systems theory conforms to the systems theories employed by diverse natural sciences. The author briefly reflects on the consequences geography – as a science – must anticipate when adopting a systems theoretical perspective. Fi- nally, some consideration is given to the strategies to be pursued by the geographies to enhance the success of integrative projects based on systems theories.

Autopoiesis, form and observation – modern systems theory and its potential contribution to the integration of human and physical geography As it seems, geographers have based their concept and understanding of the world on the assumption that it consists of diverse systems – this is revealed by the way they refer to the earth system, ecosystems, economic systems, social systems etc. as a matter of course. In consequence, modern systems theory might serve as a kind of background theory for an integrating approach of both geographies. By focusing on three basic aspects of Niklas Luhmann’s theory – autopoiesis, form and observation –, it becomes evident that his social systems theory conforms to the systems theories employed by diverse natural sciences. The author briefly reflects on the consequences geography – as a science – must anticipate when adopting a systems theoretical perspective. Finally, some consideration is given to the strategies to be pursued by the geographies to enhance the success of integrative projects based on systems theories.

Open peer commentary on the article “Between Realism and Constructivism? Luhmann’s Ambivalent Epistemological Standpoint” by Armin Scholl. Upshot: One of the key aspects of constructivism is the role of the observer. As Scholl shows in his article, Luhmann shares this perspective, and beyond that opens up the concept of observation by transferring it from the micro level of individuals to the macro level of society. Luhmann goes even further by stating that all autopoietic and self-referential systems, i.e., all living, psychic, and social systems, can observe, leaving an anthropological view behind. With this, the question of the “who” in “who observes” gains new insights that, surprisingly, touch on one of the central research questions in quantum physics.

Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: On an epistemological level, Matuszek argues convincingly that Luhmann’s epistemological ambiguities could be embedded in a coherent constructivist approach. However, what do we gain by being assured of this and why is it so difficult to tolerate ambiguities in an otherwise highly elaborated theory?

Taking the hypothesis of the Anthropocene as a starting point, the paper challenges traditional epistemologies and indicates fundamental changes within scientific concepts. Initially suggested in 2000, the hypothesis that we have entered the new geological era of the Anthropocene has started an intense debate on its plausibility and on the evidence the era could be based on. The hypothesis of the Anthropocene implies a concept fundamentally different from many precursors: It is assumed that humans and their societies no longer have a symbiotic relationship with nature but rather modify and transform natural processes to such an extent that humans have to be acknowledged as a natural force. Taking the assumptions of the Anthropocene seriously, a fundamental revision of almost every concept of the relation of societies, humans and nature would be required, as well as of our concepts of ourselves as humans and our responsibilities as scientists. The paper focuses on the question of epistemology and argues that epistemologies rooted in dualistic thinking are not suitable in the Anthropocene.

Key words: anthropocene, epistemology, non-dualism, niklas luhmann, karen barad