From Victor's post:
"Of course, any work in the humanities is subject to interpretation and
that is what, in my opinion differentiates the humanities from the
sciences. They expose themselves as representations and allow for
interpretation and debate
as legitimate forms of response."
First, in as much as it is admitted that artifacts, material and
immaterial, are kinds of language, are they fiction or not?
Second, if artifacts are language or discourse, then they are subject
only to interpretation and debate? Do artifacts thus belong to the
Humanities category only? Interpretations for debate? Or rather, do they
belong to the (hard) sciences category only? Merely objects for
analysis?
Or perhaps, artifacts should be viewed in both Humanities and (hard)
Sciences perspectives, as fiction and/or as "reality", depending on the
purpose pursued. In this last case, what then would be the
correspondingly appropriate way (s) to apprehend them? "isms", "Action
Network Theory" (ANT) and "Activity Theory" were suggested. Are there
other theories that could be used?
Regards to all!
Francois
Montreal
|