I agree.
(I wasn't including myself among those working that direction.)
But it appears to me that Terry's suggestions imply that he is?
/Lars
.........................................................................
LARS ALBINSSON
+46 (0) 70 592 70 45
[log in to unmask]
AFFILIATIONS:
MAESTRO MANAGEMENT AB
CALISTOGA SPRINGS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF BORÅS
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
.........................................................................
10 jun 2010 kl. 14.46 skrev Ken Friedman:
Dear Lars,
While I'd agree that one seeks reasonable understanding, it seems to me that physical science demonstrates that we cannot have objectivity in the sense of "in the sense of complete, undisputed and mechanistic knowledge" of anything.
Godel's incompleteness theorem certainly suggests this.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
--
Lars Albinsson wrote:
Never less, while waiting or working for a objective world in the sense of complete, undisputed and mechanistic knowledge of the areas covered by design/Design (I am not sure I am able to appreciate the difference between design and Design) there seem to be little option than to resort to judgment.
|