Dear Wolfgang, Ken, Klaus and other combatants,
Congratulations and thanks to Ken, Klaus and others for being kind enough
to have this extended debate in public .
This is a research list for PhD level study around Design. An aim of the
list is to help the learning and education of PhD candidates.
This robust discussion between Ken, Klaus and others is important in
apprenticeship terms for helping PhD students learn a variety of
professional research and academic skills.
This is education in high level professional academic skills that rarely can
occur in supervision. It also offers authentic learning because any PhD
student can join in if they wish.
The debate has gone through various phases that a supervisor can tease out
for their post graduate students, or post-doc mentors for their postdocs.
There is still some mileage the debate in learning terms, not least in terms
of how to complete, close or postpone the debate in a professional manner.
Thank you.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE
Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Unit,
Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
Institute
Research Associate at Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848 Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office) [log in to unmask]
____________________
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council,
UNIDCOM/IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
____________________
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
Jonas
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2008 10:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Entailments of History -- [Was: language and fiction]
Dear Ken and Klaus,
could you please stop this debate in public, please. Even its entertainment
value is tending towards zero, meanwhile.
Thanks a lot,
Jonas
__________
At 11:13 Uhr +0100 28.01.2008, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Klaus,
>
>The ad hominem argument is not your argument on my views or logic.
>The ad hominem argument involves specific comments on my person in
>which (1) you state that it is barely worth your time to debate me,
>(2) un-named others tell you that I distort what is being said,
>etc., and (3) state by implication that I am careless in judgments
>and treat colleagues and list members disrespectfully.
>
>Even you are correct in these judgements, this would be ad hominem
>argument -- an argument on personal qualities or characteristics.
>
>To contemplate alternative possibilities, let's imagine that all
>this is true. I may be a worthless opponent in debate. Many may feel
>that I distort what is being said, and they may be right. They may
>tell you that I justify singular points with lengthy citations from
>dictionaries. Now I've imagined that I am placing ideas in context,
>using the dictionary to illustrate common meanings, but I may be
>mistaken and they may be correct. They may also be correct in
>telling you that I hide my opinions behind objective terms. I may be
>careless in judgement, and disrespectful to my colleagues and to
>people on the list.
>
>If all these things are so, they remain ad hominem claims, claims
>about my person. Even the dictionary claim remains ad hominem as you
>use it, since neither you nor the others show that I use citations
>merely to justify singular points, as contrasted with using the
>etymology and reception of words as one link in a larger discourse.
>
>You did not simply show me where my argument on incorrect syllogism
>was not so. To say that something "isn't so" is an objectivist
>claim, and you have every right to make it. But you did more. You
>made claims about my person, explicit and implicit, further
>asserting that others hold similar beliefs, argumentum ad populum.
>
>If your purpose is to discuss my person, fire up those lightning
>bolts. But please acknowledge that these are arguments about my
>personal qualities and failings rather than arguments to the issues
>I propose.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>
>Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>
>>dear ken,
>>
>>i agree, it's wise to cool this line of arguing: blaming me in several
posts
>>for incorrect syllogisms, and when i point out that this isn't so, you see
>>it as an ad hominem attack, complaining about your person ....
>>
>>klaus
>>
>
>Klaus wrote earlier these comments that I label ad hominem:
>
>(1)
>
>> >it's barely worth my time to engage with you in public debates about
>>>things that may not matter to other participants in this list, but it
>> >bothers me and
>
>(2)
>
>>i have been told by others as well how you so often
>>>distort what is being said and justify your singular point with lengthy
>> >citations from dictionaries, hide your opinions behind objective terms,
>
>(3)
>
>>just be a little careful with your judgments and treat you colleagues and
>>people on the list with some respect.
|