I've been watching this conversation with interest because I'm working on an article
discussing a possible epistemology for design.
Agreeing with you Ben that it is counterproductive and a little more than beside the point
to debate whether there is a mind or not by using our mind to debate the point, I would
like to know what features of a sound way of knowing are. That is, rather than thinking
about whether we think or not, I'd like to have a productive discussion around how we
think.
I'm particularly interested in critical realism as a philosophical approach, which John
Polkinghorne says is widely accepted either overtly or de facto by scientists and more
than few theologians, as a way to bridge ways of knowing as diverse as rigorous science
and metaphysical theology. I'm interested if anyone would like to comment on the
epistemology of Michael Polanyi which is based on / parallel with critical realism.
I see good balance in the ways of knowing described by Polanyi in Personal Knowledge
(1958) and The Tacit Dimension (1966), where he outlines an epistemology based on
critical realism. The gist is that knowing is a process of integrating particulars into
universals. Polyni’s unique insight is into how the integration happens. He says that
particulars cannot be integrated into universals (concepts, new ideas) so long as the
particulars remain the focus of attention (focal awareness). For example, if we focus
attention only on individual trees we can never comprehend a forest. But by holding in
mind the features of many trees, plus shrubs, grasses, soil, light and other particulars
you may arrive at a new integrated knowledge called a forest. In this example, when you
integrate many features of particular things into a new idea that is greater than just the
sum of the particular parts you are forming knowledge.
I'd appreciate any thought about how we know, the processes, and a way of knowing that
works for design, a field that relies on both reason of science and the revelation of
creative insight.
Mike Zender
|