Dear Robbie,
Thanks for your note. I'm still thinking through the three questions in a
systematic way, so I'll post the responses further on.
There is one issue in your note that can be answered swiftly.
Here you raise an important distinction: the artifact as "part of the
argument." While I understand the question, it seems to me that what is
missing here is the distinction between an _argument_ and evidence for an
argument. A human being makes an argument. An artifact cannot therefore form
"part of the argument."
Instead, it provides a human being with the experience on which he or she
bases the argument, and it forms part of the evidence on which others may
judge the quality of the argument.
This is an important distinction I will consider further in my response --
when I finish polishing my argument.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Telephone +61 3 9214 6755
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:10:41 +1000, Robbie Napper wrote:
" the basis for my question was that I was hoping the artefact might form
part of the argument for the contribution of the work - in this case
resulting from doctoral research."
|