I like the turn that Kari-Hans is taking, reflecting on how discussions
counterposing design and science often and usually go on PHD-DESIGN,
and how important these topics are for on-going discussion.
I am sending an oblique contribution, simply to provide the web site
for the STS Design project of the Science and Technology Studies
Department at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the project in which
I had a post-doctoral fellowship last year. http://www.rpi.edu/dept/sts/
The RPI program is unusual in having launched design initiatives in
combination with
science and technology studies. (In addition the STS Design project,
the Product Development Innovation studios engage undergraduates
in product design, in five studios that involve collaborations with the
Architecture department.)
The STS Design project and related work by the STS faculty will not
give any answers to the questions posed by Jonas, Ken and others --
but science and technology studies may provide some additional
resources from intellectual communities concerned with understanding
scientific practices. If this interests you, see http://web.mit.edu/sts/www/4s/
(the Society for Social Studies of Science, Technology and Medicine) and
http://www.york.ac.uk/org/satsu/easst2002/ (the European Association
for Studies and Science & Technology).
Regards,
Judith
At 20:17 11/23/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Ken, it's nice to have you back...
>
>(I wrote most of this before Jonas and then Ken responded...but did
>not get to send it then - but here it goes now. But to clarify, I
>think that Ken is not talking about the topic Jonas presented but
>instead develops a new topic, inspired by Jonas' post, even if Ken's
>post is framed as a response. I am here reacting to what Ken wrote.)
>
>[commenting on/asking about
>- simplified examples
>- good scientific thinking
>- "value free"]
>
>At 01:17 +0100 23.11.2001, Ken Friedman wrote:
>>It seems to me that the way you define scientific thinking is
>>inadequate. This has come up several times before.
>
>You seem to be saying that Jonas is presenting a simplified view of
>science. However, it seems to me that your own arguments here are
>simplified in the same fashion you seem to be criticizing.
>
>For example, in the case of the fight against AIDS, you have first
>classified the approaches to dealing with the problem in a very
>simple way (science, religion, folk wisdom), and then you have chosen
>arbitrary examples of what those approaches then imply.
>
>I think that your example is a good illustration of how people think
>and like to engage in debate, but does not really show anything about
>the true value of science, religion or folk wisdom for the society.
>
>One could equally well show of examples where folk wisdom probably
>would produce better results. From the top of my head: I believe that
>folk wisdom would say "do not feed cows to cows", while scientific
>progress apparently had come to the conclusion that feeding cow
>remains to cows was a good idea. Well, now And so on.
>
>The point is not to argue of the merits of the approaches as
>categorical solutions, but to go deeper and see where science,
>religion, and folk wisdom are leading us in the right direction, and
>where not. Here science has more problems than design, because
>science excludes other approaches, because they are non-scientific,
>while design can more easily be informed by any approach.
>
>>You are also overlooking the fact that complexity theory, systems
>>thinking, and evolution theory are also forms of scientific inquiry.
>>They are scientific, and rigorous, without being invariant.
>
>I don't see that Jonas is overlooking the scientific background of
>these theories; instead he is forming insight of how they inform his
>idea of the nature of design. To me, this demonstrates the ability of
>design to be more inclusive than science. Science might have a harder
>time trying to include ideas from designers or ordinary people - or
>scientists themselves, when they have not shown scientific proof of
>their thoughts.
>
>--
>
>I have also read many posts on the list that discuss the nature of
>design and science. When someone presents a view of science which
>seems to criticize it, someone responds by saying that this view is
>inaccurate, biased and/or limited. Then the discussion proceeds to
>debate the virtues of design through elaborate descriptions of
>design, but there are very few descriptions of the virtues of science.
>
>I think all of us can agree that science has produced wonderful
>results that benefit all humankind. That, I think is not contested.
>So the basic benefits of science do not need to be defended; but it
>is the superiority of science and the scientific method over all
>other forms of inquiry, for example, which many science proponents
>seem to be advocating which probably troubles many people.
>
>Science may not be fulfilling, and may never be able to deliver the
>promise it implicitly gives to society in exchange for the authority
>it has been given in the construction of beliefs (which subsequently
>guide the value-laden design decisions in society). We live in times
>that call for something more versatile and adaptive than the
>institutional science that is practiced and understood today. A core
>issue in this particular debate is that a new academic discipline is
>being shaped; should it accept all the baggage of its predecessors?
>Or should it rather be critical and possibly give room to new
>approaches that the old one excludes?
>
>I would be extremely interested in augmenting my own view of science
>with really good examples of scientific thinking, methodology,
>standards and institutional policies, which at the same time exhibit
>the qualities that the proponents of science on this list want us all
>to recognize, as well as present those qualities that the proponents
>of designerly approaches think science is lacking.
>
>But of course, the problem of classification and categories is again
>at the core of this whole discussion. The content of my "science" and
>"design" are different from yours.
>
>--
>
>>The confusion is obvious. Scientific thinking may be value free, but
>>scientists are human beings. Human beings should not be value free.
>>What the scientist learns, and what the scientists does with his or
>>her knowledge involve different ranges of choice.
>
>Do you think that science (the essence of it) is value-free?
>
>It seems to me that science, like any human activity, can never be
>value-free. It can be believed to be and proclaimed as value-free,
>but it will never be able to become such, because it always takes
>place in a cultural context, with a universe of values embedded in
>every activity, communication and artifact.
>
>If it is not value-free, but proclaims to be, doesn't that indicate
>that the idea of objectivity (like many other claims to certainty and
>authority) is based on shaky grounds?
>
>I think that design at least tries to deal with values, while many in
>the scientific community have not wanted to accept that they should
>also do so in their work.
>
>cheers, kari-hans
|
