Holistic Management (HM) is a decision-making framework based on triple bottom line thinking and a proactive approach to managing complexity. Primarily associated with an approach to managing livestock, it has spurred long running and still unresolved debates in rangeland ecology and management. Less studied are the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of HM, which may hold the key to successful ecological outcomes. In this article, we describe the main tenets of HM as conceived by wildlife biologist Allan Savory and address the longstanding and unresolved controversy over its legitimacy. We then provide a meta-analysis that not only provides an up-to-date review of the multidisciplinary evidence and ongoing arguments about HM, but also provides a novel explanation for the controversy—that it is grounded in epistemic differences between disciplines associated with agricultural science that rule out any chance of resolution. We conclude that the way to resolve the controversy over HM is to research, in partnership with ranchers, rangeland social-ecological systems in more holistic, integrated ways. This can account for the full range of human experience, co-produce new knowledge, and contribute to social-ecological transformation.