From: Andrew J King <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed Apr 17, 2002 06:01:43 pm Europe/London
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Rockin'
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 10:07 pm, Ken Friedman wrote:
"Oh that my words were now written!
Oh that they were printed in a book!
That they were graven with an iron pen on lead
Or inscribed in rock forever."
-- Job 10:24
-----------------------------
No way Jose! -I am of the Devil's party not on the side of the Angels:
Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" is my text . . .
Ken, your authoritative acknowledgement that the problems I raise are
significant comes as a relief, and as a welcome endorsement. One small
quibble;
-----------------------------
Several ( ) were addressed to me.
-----------------------------
Not really, they were addressed to the list, though in some cases in
response to ideas and propositions you had introduced. A small
difference, but an important one to me at any rate.
-----------------------------
I will offer two brief footnotes, one to issue one on definitions and
one on the notion of nailing theses to the church door.
Andrew's first problem is the claim that no one has specifically
considered the design process within a full social and economic
context allowing for individual contribution, social elaboration, and
the development of systems on different scales to address the design
process. Andrew is mistaken in the claim that no one has defined
design this way.
-----------------------------
Eerrmm, not quite . . . don't actually recollect saying any of those
things except for the social and economic context bit What I actually
said was
Quote
most process oriented definitions of design I have encountered speak of
it as if it were an aspect of individual psychology taking place in a
social and economic vacuum. The lack of reference to social economic and
political contexts of design I feel to be a crippling defect in a great
amount of theory.
endquote
-----------------------------
Andrew has apparently not read the paper titled Creating Design
Knowledge (Friedman 2001).
-----------------------------
Quite true
-----------------------------
This offers the kind of definition that
Andrew seems to feel is missing.
-----------------------------
This i will indeed have to investigate. however, I don't think Ken, or
the other authors he cites as 'pointing in this direction (Simon and
Fuller) constitutes "a great amount of theory" in the context of the
literature as a whole, however individually excellent, so I humbly
suggest my observation stands to that extent.
-----------------------------
problem 9 - the
problem of reading - locates part of the problem rather precisely. It
is not necessary to read everything. It is necessary to read what is
relevant.
-----------------------------
Couldn't agree more. This comforting formula is less reassuring however
when one asks, who is to decide what is relevant? The researcher
certainly, but on this list we are talking about a context in which the
researcher is to be judged by his or her peers. So are we judging a) the
researcher's adherence to a canon approved by authority (which
authority?) b) the researchers ability in rhetoric to convince the
examiners of the merits of his or her selection, or c) the researcher's
ability to demonstrate curiosity and the ability to make fruitful
connections . . . or something I haven't thought of yet??
-----------------------------
Andrew has addressed several major issues in philosophy of science
that have been subjected to deep and thoughtful reflection in the
quarter century since Feyerabend published the first edition of
Against Method. Feyerabend's ideas remain relevant to the debate. He
is hardly the only relevant author.
-----------------------------
I felt that surely must be the case . . .
-----------------------------
To discuss the philosophy of science after 1975, one must read what
has been written since 1975. Anyone who claims in the year 2002 that
"the philosophy of scientific method is in crisis," cannot be taken
seriously unless he is up to date on the literature of the philosophy
of science.
-----------------------------
Fair enough, but bear in mind that that lackadaisical person is not me
-vide my disclaimer that my theses were not truth claims but requests to
know who shared my anxieties -or not.
-----------------------------
I find myself perpetually startled when design scholars attempt to
debate the philosophy of science by referring to Feyerabend and
perhaps Kuhn without mentioning other serious writers. We do not see
references to writers whom one would see cited when these issues are
discussed elsewhere. I do not expect anyone to have read all the
writers in this large field. I do expect to see some familiarly with
a few major thinkers.
Well, I quite agree. I share your startlement when people blunder across
boundaries into fields that I know well -I fear that in contemporary
scholarship it is as constant and necessary a process as meeting people
of different skin-colours is to an international traveller . . .
Again, if the careful frame I gave to my theses before nailing them up
is considered, it will I hope be seen, that I am making more or less the
same plea here myself -philosophy of science is not my subject, there
must be more to recent debate than Feyerabend, so where are they? I keep
harping on about him for a number of reasons. One is because he forms a
handy punctuation to the lines of development involving Lakatos, Kuhn,
Popper et al who did attract the attention of design theorists at the
time (late 60's early 70's) before semiotics and structuralism became
the favourite intellectual flavouring for design theory. (I know, I was
there Department of Design Research Royal College of Art UK under Prof
Bruce Archer as the kind of hopelessly disorientated student I despair
of myself as a tutor today . . .)
-----------------------------
Without bothering to sort their views out, here is a list of only a
few authors who represent most of the major colors in the spectrum. I
never see these authors quoted when these debates occur in design
circles. The authors include: Bloor, Blumer, Bunge, Carnap, Durkheim,
Einstein, Feynman, Giere, Gordon, Hayek, Hollinger, Holton, Klemke,
Lakatos, Machlup, Mermin, Musgrave, Pickering, Popper, Putnam, Rudge.
-----------------------------
many thanks Ken. I am familiar with the reputations if not the works of
about half of these -and slightly worried by tha fact that that half
pre-date or are contemporary with Feyerabend and appear to me to have
been effectively 'holed below the waterline' by him in 'Against Method'.
Others may of course not agree.
My question remains (and it is a question as much for my own researches
as for the list -who has taken issue directly with Feyerabend, or with
the issues he raises since 'Against Method'?
-----------------------------
I do see Kuhn used, along with Berger and Luckmann - and I usually
them misquoted. Their work is often interpreted in ways that they
have directly argued against.
-----------------------------
H'mm. always an occaisional problem in academic life -I believe
Feyerabend got cited in a list of authors establishing the credentials
of scientific methodology in one paper i read a while back.
-----------------------------
I do not suggest that everyone MUST read all the authors I list here.
I do say that IF we are going to discuss philosophy of science, THEN
we require at least a passing familiarity with the major issues and
the writers who discuss them.
-----------------------------
Hear hear -which is why I put problem 3 on the list!
-----------------------------
In my response, I will draw on the required material. Those who wish
to prepare for a serious debate may wish to read two important recent
contributions, Robert Nozick's (2001) Invariances and Stephen
Toulmin's (2001) Return to Reason.
-----------------------------
Thanks for the tip. Reviews of these two in had already convinced me
they might be worth looking at. However, pending any opportunity I might
get to read them, I would observe that the fact two such authors feel
the need to publish texts with such polemical titles (Toulmin) and
stances (Nozick) suggests strongly to me at any rate that the crisis is
far from over . . .
-----------------------------
Dr. Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenberg
Church on October 31 - or possibly November 1 - 1517. It was five
years since Luther completed his doctorate and entered the faculty
senate of Wittenberg University as a university master in the faculty
of arts. At the time of the disputation, Luther was responsible for
Wittenberg's studium generale - the basic academic training for
university scholars - and he held the chair in biblical theology.
-----------------------------
All of which throws into embarrassing highlight my appalling temerity in
drawing a historical parallel -still, even Dr luther had a bit of a
cheek going head to head with the Pope.
-----------------------------
In medieval university cities such as Wittenberg, it was customary to
nail theses to a church door to announce the topics of a public
debate. This was not because the issues were always theological, but
because the church was the one public forum visited by EVERYONE in a
community. All major notices were posted to the church door. Since a
public debate was intended to reach the entire literate public, all
such calls to debate were posted on the church door.
-----------------------------
Which is reassuring . . .
-----------------------------
Anyone who has read the 95 theses knows that Luther demanded fidelity
to source materials. In this, Luther is my predecessor and master.
-----------------------------
erm, so does every churchman in a scriptural religion . . . chapter and
verse as we still say . . .
-----------------------------
I close with the introduction to Luther's 95 Theses:
"Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of
eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public
discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father
Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and
duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects at that place. He requests
that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally
will do so in absence in writing" (Luther 1961: 490).
-----------------------------
Now that is interesting -'out of love and concern for the truth. . . and
was not the upshot the emergence of a new pardigm of truth and evidence,
incommensurate with the old? And much consequent bloodshed because
people couldn't accept the co-existence of the two
-----------------------------
I hereby proclaim my willingness to enter this debate.
-----------------------------
-what debate? I just asked some questions! -have a debate by all means
people, but don't pin it on me!!
-----------------------------
I announce my
intention to debate these issues in writing.
In closing, I echo the words of Martin Luther - or was it Arnold
Schwarzenegger ? -
"I'll be back!"
Ken Friedman
-----------------------------
Arnold Schwarzenegger?? tsk tsk, not in one of his mindlessly aggressive
roles I trust, otherwise:
"Fecit meum diem punc"
Amen
|
