This a response to a post from 2/19/11. That might seem like ages ago. Adam Parker was responding to a post I made concerning the general topic of generalizing from particulars. He lettered his paragraphs, so I'll respond with italics

Derek,

A response:

A. I'm sure that equivalent jokes about economists and lawyers could be
considered equally rude and unproductive. Certainly, we got plenty of them
when I was at law school. Again, my point is clear. Jokes are fine, but we
should not dismiss other disciplines as *being jokes themselves* within an
academic forum, particularly in one concerning a discipline with a great
deal of work to be done on understanding what it's even about or how it
could work. It is anti-intellectual in the extreme. Who knows what
discipline will give us the next pieces we need to take design to new
grounds?


(response)

It wasn't my joke, so I'm not going into a second round to defend it. True enough, good ideas could come from anywhere. They don't, but I suppose they could.


B. "It is a bold statement to claim that someone fails to understand
philosophy as a discipline". I disagree, but in fact no such claim was even
made. Careful parsing of my original response reveals key phrase: "in some
respects". Please note this, it makes a world of difference. Furthermore, if
one is not to make *ad hominum* arguments, neither should one be making
arguments from authority. The Head of Philosophy at Cambridge can be as
wrong-headed as any of us. I am not speaking of any particular fact, by the
way, simply the possibility of such a fact.

(response)

I would say, we can't all be equally wrong on the same things. Some things must surely be truer than others, and some are better equipped to provide them. My opinion on fixing cars is simply not as good as a mechanic's. I do genuinely believe this extends to the vast majority of kinds of knowledge.


C. I stand by my comments. Anglo-American analytic philosophy, in which I
was trained, sought in some respects to make the philosophical world in its
own image. This is particularly evident in the manner in which many members
have attacked traditions in philosophy outside itself q.v. the protests
against Derrida's HonDoc at Cambridge lead by leading analytics, claiming he
was a charlatan. Witness the dismissal of the later Wittgenstein you raise
yourself. Thankfully, the world is *not* an Anglo-American analytic one.
Equally thankfully, neither is it Franco-German in any sense. This is a
matter of being thankful for diversity of opinion, not trumpeting one's
views as the be-all and end-all. I am sure that analytics have something to
offer as well, I simply disagree with them at many a point and will argue
against them with vigour.

(response)

People who are trained to work a particular way are not necessarily out to make (i.e. with intent) the world a certain way. They may genuinely see it that way, and they may also be genuinely in pursuit of questions to which a certain way of working is productive, generative or helpful.

I guess what I'm trying to emphasize, in each post, and in each segment of this post, is that relativism should not be confused with pluralism. Within a given system, there are better and worse ways of proceeding. If one is genuinely interested in understanding the empirical in social actions, then one cannot proceed from a system that does not provide a basis for determining the existence of phenomena to be studied, and then give a means of doing so. Super quickly: If you want to study whether meaning is being imparted in a conversation, you need a theory (not a philosophy) about what a conversation is — that is, how to know one when you "see" one. And you need a means — a coding system —for making a determination about whether meaning is being imparted, etc.

This is not philosphy. It is theory. Yes, theory is reposed on philosophy. But it is critical that they be distinguished. And I am very worried that designers are reaching for philosophy when they need to be building theory.



D. I did address your comment. My entire point was to demonstrate that a)
there is view of philosophical thinking that is beyond what appears to me to
be your current one, which I might unjustly summarise as "philosophy =
clarification of thought through truth validation practice" and that b)
moving beyond philosophy, when there exists a philosophical context where
"philosophy = conceptual creation through positive differentiation to enable
thinking", is throwing out a mode of practice that might yet be of
considerable benefit to designers.

(response)

OK.


E. As I notice, Ken raised the philosophy of science in response to Jude,
followed by a direct response by yourself. I welcome the broadening of the
discussion that you have assisted, considering that certain members of this
community are still determined to scientise design - if they are to attempt
this, we should at least consider what kinds of beasties they are hunting.
Thanks for that.

(response)

Certainly much, much to discuss. And I'm glad we're doing it.


[Adam] Finally, if *Media Pressure on Foreign Policy* is your work, then I'd
certainly like to hear more about the topic. Opening a thread on design and
its articulations into foreign policy practices, from your perspective,
would be very interesting.


(response)

I'd be very happy to discuss this matters, and am extremely committed to bringing designers more fully into areas of international public policy — especially peace and security. But as you say, a NEW thread will be required.

Best.


_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director

The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America

Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylag.org