Response to commentators on the blind spot: why science cannot ignore human experience
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences March 23, 2026 DOI: 10.1007/s11097-026-10146-2 via Springer Nature
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe author replies to commentaries on the book The Blind Spot, which argues that science must account for human experience rather than pretend to an objective view from nowhere. The response engages with points raised by Chirimuuta, Froese, Kyselo, and Vanney, defending the book's critique of reductionism and its call for a science that incorporates first-person experience and sense-making. The author maintains that ignoring the subjective, embodied dimension of knowing creates a blind spot that undermines scientific understanding.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Keywords | Blind spot Reductionism Philosophy of science Enaction |
| Key finding | The author defends the book's argument that science cannot ignore human experience and must move beyond reductionism to incorporate first-person sense-making. |
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 ).