Response to commentators on the blind spot: why science cannot ignore human experience
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences March 23, 2026 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1007/s11097-026-10146-2 via Springer Nature
Summary
The author responds to commentaries on the book 'The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience', addressing points raised by Mazviita Chirimuuta, Tom Froese, Miriam Kyselo, and Claudia E. Vanney. The response engages with critiques and elaborates on the book's argument that science must incorporate human experience to avoid reductionism, drawing on phenomenology and the enactive approach to sense-making.
Study at a glance
| Design | theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key finding | The author defends the book's thesis that science cannot ignore human experience, engaging with commentaries on reductionism, phenomenology, and enaction. |
Abstract
This article contains my response to the commentaries by Mazviita Chirimuuta, Tom Froese, Miriam Kyselo, and Claudia E. Vanney on The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience (Frank et al., 2024 ).