Dear Colleagues,

In the current discursion on reality and fiction we went too far in 
one direction. We talk about hearing many voices, but we would like 
to hear only our voice. That is a paradox from a scholarly point of 
view and natural situation from a political point of view.

We basically revolve within one frame of reference, heavily anchored 
in linguistic studies. Linguistic approaches are interesting, 
fascinating and productive in a number of disciplinary areas. I am 
not sure they are powerful enough to resolve the basic question of 
philosophy -- the relation between idea and matter (material).

Overreliance on language and interpretation of words rather than 
concepts can lead us to a circular argument, to logical errors, and 
false sense for discovery.

When applied to the most general philosophical questions, 
disciplinary approaches become reductionist. They reduce the 
complexity of the world to the nature of their domain. I agree that 
with a linguistic approach we can view many phenomena from a new 
angle and discover new aspects. Linguistic approaches are very 
productive when studying aesthetical phenomena. However, we should 
always be aware of the reductionism of linguistic approaches when 
applied to areas that are broader than the scope of their applicability.

Language is very important, but it is only an instrument of 
communication. You can not convince me that the instrument is more 
important than the activity where it is used. And you can not reduce 
the act of communication to language. You can afford this only for 
particular projects, with full awareness for the consequences.

In the current discussion there are several logical mistakes. One of 
them is substituting writing for research. Part of the problem 
started from this substitution. Writing is not research. We use 
writing in research to communicate our findings, to write our 
research reports. Many people believe that they write a paper. They 
write a research report. Without research, there is nothing to write 
about. If we accept this position, we will be able to get a way from 
the linguistic reductionism.

Another error. Blurring institutional boundaries and nature to the 
point when institutions loose their essence and cease to exist. Let's 
start with an institutional analysis. Science is a social 
institution. Literature (and fiction) is a social institution. These 
are two different institutions, with different social functions, 
structures, standards, and norms. If we accept this point of view, we 
might see that we are comparing apples and oranges. The function of 
science is discovery, while the function of design, art, and 
literature -- invention. (I simplify to save time.) In order to 
actualize these functions, we need to create completely different 
epistemological and methodological systems. One system emphasizes 
finding and truth (as much as it is possible) and the other system 
emphasizing creation, invention, making something that haven't been 
around before.

An institutional analysis will also help us understand why science 
and design are two different things. I understand that most of the 
design researchers will be unhappy to hear this, and we will keep 
that discussion for another time. Not now. However, many of the 
conundrums of design research can not be solved if we do not respect 
the institutional differences between science and design.

Another problem is the extreme agnosticism that some people hold. I 
would not engage in dissuading them. World-class philosophers have 
argued pro and con, so I am not in a position to make a better 
argument. At our level of philosophical expertise, I would suggest 
that we reject agnosticism. Otherwise, to hell with science. We don't 
need it because by definition it can not bring us knowledge about the 
world. We better engage in religion and interpret the holly 
scriptures. By the way, an extreme linguistic and agnostic approach 
would not interfere with our engagements if we use a hermeneutic 
frame of reference. Some people will dispute that and I am ready to 
revert, but I will make a concession at this time to my colleagues. I 
am trying to see the things from both sides.

I can accept that the world is a social construction (actually, that 
is my position), but to claim that the world is a fiction, is more 
than extreme. There is a big difference between social construction 
and fiction. As terms, they are obviously different. But they are 
also different as concepts. These are different concepts, created in 
different intellectual traditions, with different purposes, intended 
to function in different discourses. When you use them in synonyms it 
is very easy to make a logical error. This discussion continues 
because of logical errors, incorrect substitutions, and erroneous outcomes.

Thank you for attention,

Lubomir