In this article, we critique the science of reading when it is positioned within the reading wars as settling disagreements about reading and how it should be taught. We frame our argument in terms of troublesome binaries, specifically between nature and nurture. We interpret that binary in relation to Overton’s distinction between split and relational metatheories, with the latter suggesting a more integrative view of nature and nurture. Focusing on the nature side of the binary, which predominates when the science of reading is promoted in the reading wars, we argue that its singular focus limits the range of scientific inquiry, interpretation, and application to practice. Specifically, we address limitations of the science of reading as characterized by a narrow theoretical lens, an abstracted empiricism, and uncritical inductive generalizations derived from brain-imaging and eye movement data sources. Finally, we call for a relational metatheoretical stance and offer emulative examples of that stance in the field.

中文翻译：

---

二进制文件的问题：阅读科学的观点

在这篇文章中，我们批评阅读科学，当它被定位在阅读战争中时，它解决了关于阅读及其应该如何教授的分歧。我们根据麻烦的二进制来构建我们的论点，特别是在先天和后天之间。我们根据奥弗顿在分裂元理论和关系元理论之间的区别来解释这种二元论，后者表明对先天和后天的看法更加综合。着眼于在阅读战争中推广阅读科学时占主导地位的二元论的本质方面，我们认为它的单一关注限制了科学探究、解释和实践应用的范围。具体而言，我们解决了阅读科学的局限性，其特点是狭隘的理论视角、抽象的经验主义、以及源自脑成像和眼动数据源的不加批判的归纳概括。最后，我们呼吁采取关系元理论立场，并在该领域提供该立场的仿真示例。