I have to say... that.. artifacts are part of all dissertation
arguments, be the artifacts, computers, pens, books, atoms, sub-atomic
forces, etc. etc. I doubt one could find or construct a dissertation
without artifacts participating in the argument. It seems to me that
most dissertations center on questions of artifacts, which I'm taking
to mean objects of artifice, which is something that has been
manipulated/changed by humans. I'm not even talking about the
paratextual apparatus either, i'm talking about the objects of almost
all dissertations being at least in part related to artifacts. Even
cosmological theory, which might be the hardest case, is likely going
to reference a metaphor that allows us access to understand and thus
allows the argument to proceed.
On May 4, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Chris Rust wrote:
> 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
|