Hi Klaus,

A metaparadigmatic position is the solution, but it is not easy to 
construct it. It is not easy and it rarely happens. In interparadigmatic 
discourse it is not uncommon to criticize one position from the standpoint 
of another with all subsequent side effects. I applaud the concept of 
otherness in politics and everyday life as a way to defend everybody's 
interests, share of social wealth, and right of existence.   However, when 
we talk within the framework of natural, social, and human sciences, this 
political instrument might compromise the integrity of intellectual 
appropriation of the world. It is not the otherness by itself that drives 
new developments in science, it is the type of otherness. In science, we 
are not (at least we should not be) lobbists for personal gain, we are 
agents of a professonalized system with its own epistemological standards. 
Professionalization is an instrument of promulgating particular methods and 
know-how with the intent to uphold already achieved standards of 
performance. There are OTHER institutionalized options for understanding 
and explaining the world, and new options can be created. The openness of a 
society can be expressed in its tolerance towards new knowledge production 
institutions rather than diluting the existing ones. Change and 
transformation are normal mechanisms for updating social structures; 
however, two much transformation might lead to the annihilation of the 
institution regarding its original purpose and character. I never reject 
the OTHER point of view -- I just advocate that it should be considered 
within an appropriate intellectual and social framework. In this way, both 
otherness is supported, and the right of existence and individuality of 
current institutions is also supported. I am talking about this for four 
years and nobody wants to hear. Instead, the discourse is politicized and 
driven away from the current professional system towards and environment 
which is completely different regarding purpose and operation.

I still can not understand what is the attraction of the scientific status 
to so many people who evidently do not care to understand what is the 
social meaning of the institution of science and the individual 
paradigmatic orientation. I personally don't have a very high opinion about 
science and do not think that being a practicing doctor, computer engineer, 
or industrial designer is of lower standing. Sometimes I even admire more 
people in other occupations. By the way, the scientific status is a problem 
of particular individuals and social groups who evidently see their 
placement in society only within the structures of the scientific 
institution. Just for comparison, there are other social groups and 
individuals who pride themselves with the occupation they hold and don't 
give a damn about these laboratory rats that spend their life buried in 
books. Take a painter, take an architect, or an industrial designer, and 
you will see that they will laugh at the book worms, but they will laugh 
even more at these people who struggle to get in the can of worms. That is 
the world. It is about the meaning of life, it is about fitting into a 
niche, it is about fighting for something that sometimes doesn't make 
sense. The last cases are the most tragic ones.

Klaus, I agree with you that you are not postmodern(ist). It is difficult 
for me to understand your paradigmatic inclinations and your intellectual 
platform.  I had expressed many times my disagreement with you. I had 
expressed my disagreement with Ken as well. All of us are different. 
However, I appreciate the level of your discourse and I had always 
approached the debate with you in collegiate manner. Such disagreements and 
such arguments are the driving forces of new developments.

Regards,

Lubomir



At 02:10 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>sorry for not having the time to respond in detail.  while i am not an 
>-ist, postmodern- or objectiv-, i see this thread going in a direction 
>that i don't particularly want to go.
>
>i see ken criticizing one discourse from an incommensurate other 
>discourse.  such criticism amount to saying you are wrong, inferior, 
>outdated just because you do not conform to my way of thinking, my 
>criteria for being -- and not admitting that it is just my way of 
>thinking, my unacknowledged position.
>
>these kinds of arguments get us into trouble with the notion of otherness, 
>(see rosan chow's thread).  i have argued for a second-order 
>understanding, one that embraces the otherness of others, but objectivist 
>accounts, claiming to rely on evidence have no place for such conceptions.
>
>klaus
>
>  At 12:58 PM 8/31/01 +1000, Sid Newton wrote:
>>Ken
>>
>>“Here we go round the Mulberry Bush…” “You say Tomato…”
>>
>>A break already! If my assertions offend you I will desist from posting, 
>>as others are clearly electing to do. You asked me to be involved, you 
>>did not say I had to play by your rule set. If ideas without the 
>>foundation you require are tiresome and disruptive then some other forum 
>>is clearly called for.
>>
>> >Second, (2) much of the evidence postmodernists assert involves the
>> >claim that there is no evidence and there are no fixed facts.
>>
>>What no citation? ;-) As I understand it postmodernists question absolute 
>>evidence and absolute (fixed) facts. This is not merely a postmodernist 
>>critique. Popper (1968) argues that there can be no such confirmation, 
>>merely scholarly attempts to refute claims. Certainly some evidence and 
>>facts resist refutation within a particular representation, and they are 
>>what we refer to as fixed facts, but they are never so in an absolute 
>>sense. That we all agree some things to be the case, does not constitute 
>>an absolute fact. However, to make such an assertion is not then to 
>>consign everything to the tyranny of relativism, as you suggest.
>>
>> >How can one claim to offer evidence if no evidence is possible?
>>Evidence is possible, but is constituted by a particular interpretation. 
>>We all make assumptions about things. Where those assumptions are shared 
>>we have evidence that resists refutation within a particular framing of 
>>the problematic situation. The power of design is that it explicitly 
>>challenges and experiments with the framing of a situation, revealing new 
>>possibilities as it hides other aspects. It is that very nature of design 
>>that Schon attends to, and what he tries to articulate as a possible 
>>epistemology of practice.
>>
>> >I am getting far-fetched here, but no more far-fetched than the notion 
>> that a quantum theory of gravitation has political implications of any kind.
>>Out of my depth here, but is a quantum theory of gravitation not a 
>>particular construct, based on technical rationality, and therefore 
>>empowering one culture over another? In any case, subscribing to a 
>>particular epistemological framework is a political move, and so whilst 
>>stretching the case, I do see there are political implications in the 
>>quantum theory of gravitation…
>>Of course there is a tyranny in relativism, but that is not the necessary 
>>consequence of an interpretive account of knowing. As you indicate, we 
>>all on this list share perspectives on certain issues. We would all 
>>accept that killing another person is unjust. But where do we sit on 
>>abortion or euthanasia? Does your proud history of factual evidence 
>>provide the answer to either of these dilemma’s? Will a definition of 
>>either from the most learned encyclopedia provide a solution for someone 
>>facing such a question? It will, but not for us all. Stanley Fish (1989), 
>>just to bring another widely quoted and controversial author into play, 
>>has much to say about evidence and interpretation.
>>
>> >Reverence for truth is the touchstone of good research. Truth requires 
>> evidence.
>>Truth also requires interpretation.
>>
>> >Rather than assertions - what Jan Verwijnen once labeled position without
>> >discourse - the simplest and best approach is to state claims and offer 
>> evidence
>> >in warrant of the claims.
>>I disagree. Not entirely, but this is probably something of a swan-song, 
>>so… There are contributors to this list who do not need to provide me 
>>with any evidence what-so-ever for their assertions to be meaningful and 
>>warranted. Such contributions come in the context of a broader discourse 
>>in which their evidence and arguments have been presented, and I don’t 
>>need to see everything they claim made explicit to find value and derive 
>>understanding. Also, there are assertions made that have no evidence and 
>>no context of discourse on which to judge them, but I judge them 
>>none-the-less, and find value and derive understanding from some of them. 
>>On the contrary, there are claims made with bountiful evidence that are 
>>based on assumptions that I would question, and I dismiss these as of no 
>>value and derive no new understandings from them, despite their claims 
>>and evidence. Your position here appears to be to impose a regulation on 
>>communication and community that is helpful and powerful in many regards, 
>>but despite your personal great endeavours still has us disagreeing on 
>>how to discuss things! This kind of disagreement, as you have indicated, 
>>has been around for a long time and is probably tiresome for us all. The 
>>list probably needs another direction. You asked me to contribute, but my 
>>form of contribution is unacceptable to you so I will return to the ranks 
>>of lurking  shaking my head, biting my lip and reading Pooh Bear.
>>
>>Fish, S. (1989) Doing what comes naturally. Duke Uni Press.
>>Popper, K. (1968) Conjectures and refutations, Harper & Row.
>>
>>--Sid.