Hello dear colleagues,
Peter said <Design is not a science ... Absolutely correct! Sometimes it
needs a Ph.D. student to tell all these professors the evident.
However, with the second part of his statement <and therefore it does NOT
yield to scientific analysis> I would strongly disagree. Design is a
phenomenon. Every phenomenon can be subjected to scholarly treatment. Here
I use the term "scholarly" because too many people equate science with
positivism. Otherwise, I would say "scientific" because science is an
institution and not just one paradigm. I also said "treatment" to preclude
automatic reaction that analysis is not the only scholarly engagement. In
relation to design it is the interpretation that takes a central place in
the scholarly activity.
I also believe that here on this list we are interested in the scholarly
approaches to understanding the world and producing new knowledge. I agree
with you that design produces knowledge. However, this doesn't make design
a science. For your information, religion is a major source of knowledge
production. Just don't tell me that we have to discuss on this list the
religious approaches to new knowledge. Although I would not be astonished
if some very "creative" thinker will come up with a new surprise.
Sorry if I repeat myself too often -- I make this talk for more than 6-7
years.
Best regards,
Lubomir Popov
At 03:42 PM 9/17/2004 +0100, Peter J. Walters wrote:
>sorry my last sentence should have read:
>
>Design is not a science and therefore it does NOT yield to scientific analysis
>
>Thanks
>
>Peter
>
>Peter Walters
>PhD Student
>Sheffield Hallam University
>http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/peterwalters
>[log in to unmask]
|