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.A cross decades, disagreements about how to teach students to read have been framed as the reading wars (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018;Goldenberg, 2020;Nicholson, 1992;Pearson, 2004). The plurality of the phrase indicates its longevity, and the war metaphor alludes to binaries that define the oppositional perspectives. What is referred to as the science of reading (SOR) has often been positioned among its adherents on one end of the binary as the final arbiter of who can claim victory (see Seidenberg, Cooper Borkenhagen, & Kearns, 2020). This perspective often views reading specialists in either schools or on teacher education faculties as largely, perhaps deliberately, uninformed about scientific research in reading (Seidenberg, 2017). Some have even argued that the SOR has already settled much of the debate (Castles et al., 2018;Petscher et al., 2020) or made it moot. However, as we argue in this article, what is considered to be the SORits essential character, its scope, and its applicability in matters of teaching reading-also stands on much contested ground.To open a window for discussion, we focus on a long-standing binary, nature versus nurture, which for our purposes historicizes a fundamentally contested dualism whenever the term science is applied to any human behavior, such as reading and teaching reading (cf. Ellis & Bloch, 2021;Ellis & Solms, 2018). It is entwined with and sustained by other binaries, one being the qualitative/quantitative paradigms that guide research methods. On the one hand, the nature side of the binary attends to the biological and neurological processes that produce cognition, with the understanding that "reading is mainly an internal event"