Well, debates are raging, and this might be better than exchanging
Christmas carols. I believer we are a scholarly community and not a chat
room for teenagers. At least the name of the list (PHD-DESIGN) suggest this.
>Hi Ken,
>thanks for your friendly comment. Maybe it is this kind of postings from
>your side that prevent so many people to participate in the debate.
I would disagree with this idea. Whether people leave the list because of
Ken's posts I have no grounds to decide. However, I see no reason that
somebody leaves the list because of Ken's posts. On the contrary, if Ken
withdraws, the discourse will degenerate down to hollow pleasantries and
the list will become a turf for would-be researchers. This is the moment to
point our Ken's contributions and thank him for promoting scholarly debate.
I personally disagree with Ken in about 4/5 of the cases, but see no reason
to get frustrated by him. If I believe he might mislead the list with
confused ideas, I will step forward and present an alternative point. But
just because he writes long posts, I would not get offended. It is not
offensive also to display and defend particular scholarly ideas as long as
the language is socially appropriate. I have not heard any offending words.
Some people might get offended just because Ken disagrees with them.
Disagreement in science is essential.
What makes sense and what doesn't make sense emerges in disputes between
opinion leaders in spontaneous community discussions. The problem is that
often the outcomes of this process depend on personality traits and
political agendas. Some people with limited scholarly experience
persistently promote "anything goes/everything makes sense" agendas. I am
personally fed up with political people who fight for self-actualization
opportunities under the disguise of empowerment programs. In the meantime,
some colleagues might withdraw from the debate simply because it might be
below their level of aspiration. Sociologists of science had written about
these processes.
I am not concerned that some people do not dare to write. I will be
concerned when Ken Friedman stops writing. And I am concerned that John C.
Jones, Nigel Cross, D. Darling, H. Sanoff, Rowe, as well as many others
rarely write a line. May be the discourse is below their level and they
have no interest to participate? Klaus also went into exile. (He might be
offended, I don't know. He is another kind.)
My personal interest is to see a high level scholarly discourse rather
than empowerment conferences. And, as I mentioned before, scholarly doesn't
mean positivist. Some people see science only in its most rigid form just
because they have been trained in this way. However, there are several
paradigms and we would better consider some of them when we talk about the
rigidity of science.
Regards,
Lubomir Popov
|