ReviewFrontiers in sociology2026
Toward a paradox-oriented paradigm of knowing: the form theory of observation and quality in empirical sciences.
Review in Frontiers in sociology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How much less is enough? A reflexive perspective on the theory of simplified information processing by Voigt et al. (2025).Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- Caring About Care: The Paradox of Self-Care in Occupational Therapy.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We develop a form-theoretical account of knowing in empirically oriented sciences and argue for a paradox-oriented understanding of epistemic quality. Drawing on Spencer-Brown and Luhmann, we start from the idea that observation always operates by drawing a distinction and indicating one side. What appears as an object or "phenomenon" is thus the marked side of a form; its unmarked side persists as horizon. This implies an origin paradox of knowing: any knowing system can only operate by means of distinctions whose own contingency cannot be observed in the very act of use. We reconstruct how this paradox is functionally invisibilized and proliferates within science understood as a social system operating under the guiding distinction true/not-true. Programmes (methods, designs, standards), organizations and memory structures (journals, universities, reviews) distribute the paradox across three dimensions of scientific communication: in the factual dimension, as object formats, evidential hierarchies and growing residual categories; in the social dimension, as roles, communities and responsibility attributions; and in the temporal dimension, as replication cycles, escalation programmes and crisis semantics. This stabilizes an implicit quality paradigm that equates quality with coherence, consensus and cumulative stability. As an alternative, we propose a paradox-oriented quality concept: quality in this perspective lies in how a system addresses the constitutive paradox of its own observation without blocking its autopoiesis. We conceptualize quality as a calibrated rhythm of invisibilizing and briefly exposing the form of observation, increasing both robustness and the range of next possible operations. While developed with reference to empirical science, the argument generalizes to any knowing system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.