I will kindly disagree with the stance of several colleagues as well as
their interpretation of science. It seems to me they equate science with
positivism and blame science for all the shortcomings of positivist
thinking. I am not a positivist fan as well and in this respect, I support
you. However, I do not see any reason to engage in everyday thinking and to
carry on the discussion at the level of street-wise talk. In this regard I
support Ken's attempts to keep the list on science track.

I am astonished that so many people, so consistently and persistently try
to see science in only one dimension -- the positivist one. The reasons
might be hidden in the linguistic situation, there might be cultural
reasons, it might be anything.

Another interesting development is the progressing intellectual anarchy and
disdain for intellectualism. Post-modernism is not anarchistic. It has its
own logic and discipline that is different from the binary logic of
arithmetics. People often do not understand it and interpret the this way
of thinking as "anything goes." Too many people fight for equality in
science by simply insisting that everything matters because its is the
treasure of their personal expression and empowerment of the oppressed. Too
many people see science as the floor of the national assembly where
everybody fights for personal interests and everybody is right as long as
he/she collects the votes. That's  contemporary science. It is like a
political debate -- my interests, his interests, I like this, he likes
than, lets vote. Thirty Yes, one No, I win, he loses (elections and power).

By the way, my students say they do "research" when they go to look in the
telephone directory for a phone number. Nowadays every one who opens a
directory of any kind engages in research.  And everyone when messes
several theories becomes very creative. It is like the toddlers win the
kindergarten who mess words and create new ones. And this is not
astonishing since fingerpainting was proclaimed creative. In this regard,
in a test for creativity, I bet the toddlers will beat us all.

I strongly believe that we do not need to be positivists in order to be
academic. I myself have problems with positivists when it comes to academic
behavior. However, I would not agree with the majority on this list that
want to blur the boundaries between science, myth, religion, and all other
modes of knowing. I emphasize -- there are several modes of knowing, many
of them institutionalized.

We are on this list on science mode. Then, why should we promote everyday
thinking on this forum? If it is a D Research S list, why should we shy
away of  science discourse?

Regards,

Lubomir



At 12:02 PM 8/7/2001 +0300, Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
>I must agree with Feyerabend (haven't read him - so I rely on
>Andrew's interpretation). My personal conclusion is that beliefs run
>the world. Some of them are based on science. Science is used as a
>justification for many crazy things in the world, as well as any
>other belief system. But many beliefs that are based on
>non-scientific evidence and thinking may be worth much more for
>humanity than the scientific ones.
>
>But doesn't design need to become scientific in order to be academic?
>I am not sure. I believe that academia needs to be reformed, because
>science can't deal with all the issues of the world, because the
>issues do not adhere to currently applied scientific constraints.
>This is where design can operate more easily than other
>"disciplines", because it is part of its nature to integrate things
>from many sources, often through intuition and dealing with
>uncertainty, and produce a more holistic, and sometimes a more
>perceptive, point of view. But how to do this in a "new" academic
>fashion without losing the best characteristics of design as a field
>of activity? That is the challenge.
>
>cheers, khk
>
>...
>
>At 23:56 +0000 6.8.2001, Andrew J King wrote:
>>Ken,
>>
>>You wrote:
>>>
>>>As to the important question on Paul Feyerabend, I have read
>>>Feyerabend. It's helpful to sort out the intentionally provocative
>>>nonsense, such as the assertion that voodoo is as good as science for
>>>explaining phenomena.
>>
>>I'm not sure one can 'sort out' the 'nonsense' -his claim is not surely
>>that voodoo is as good as science for explaining phenomena (although as he
>>points out it can on occaision be equally efficatious in guiding action)
>>but that science cannot on the basis of reason alone, pretend to any
>>greater 'truth claim', science is equally a 'faith'.
>>
>>Undoubtedly this is provocative, but that does not detract from the
>>seriousness of the argument. One cannot 'pick and choose' surely from an
>>author like Feyerabend his arguments are surely too integrated -either you
>>buy into his radical scepticism and tackle the very deep and seroius issues
>>it raises, or you find a better argument than Thomas Kuhn and others could
>>manage to refute it. Until then philosophy of science remains I suggest in
>>crisis (unless someone's already done the job) and we can't simply draw on
>>it as the basis for a design science with a superior truth claim based on
>>reason.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>Andrew J King
>><http://www.ajking.dircon.co.uk>
>>______________________________________
>>design  craft  theory  criticism  education  on-line
>>______________________________________