Let me state that I am in violent agreement with Eduardo's comment.
I certainly do not want to say that science is the only way. Cultural studies
are essential. Different points of views are essential. Indeed, I once stated
-- and I will repeat it now -- that science studies what it knows how to study
and assumes that everything else is unimportant. But quite often, science
studies the trivia, because it can do so, and ignores the most essential
elements of life, because it has no idea how to do so.
My only issue is that when non-scientists talk about scientific matters, they
tread just as gently as I should tread when I talk about art, and beauty, love,
and aesthetics from the cultural, non-scientific point of view.
Emotions, consciousness, and memory, as an example, are part of science. I claim
that "visceral beauty" is a part of science, because it is mostly determined by
automatic, pre-wired responses to perceptions that have evolved over time and
are part of our biological heritage. Beauty, however, is highly culturally
determined, and here, science has little to say. Many (most?) of the issues in
design are outside the purview of science. As a result, we absolutely must have
other approaches.
Does this help?
---
(Just came back from the opening meeting for the Stanford design school (or
d.school, as they call themselves. Just agreed to teach a course there in the
Winter (and a course at Northwestern in the Fall). Exciting times.)
Don
|