Ken Friedman wrote:
> 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."
I'll reserve my right to disagree with this Ken. The proposition that an
artefact can form part of an argument cannot be falsified (At least it
can't until the last scholar is dead and there are no more artefacts,
arguments and audiences waiting in the wings).
No need to second-guess the future. And of course a thesis is nothing
more than an artefact.
very best and special thanks to Robbie and Jose for setting this old
hare running, it probably needed an airing.
Chris
|