Dear Derek and Birger,

I'll follow up in the pub mode, though I don't  have a beer at hand.

It seems to me that :
(1)  there is something that has to do with power in this opposition  
between design research and practice based research. At this moment  
in time, it is academia that is pushing the issue, rather than the  
profession. If there were loads of jobs for designers with a PhD, we  
would know. And it has been imposed on the "design curriculae" by the  
state level institutions: ministries etc. And very simply (power is  
simple !): no PhD=no money ! (at least in Europe, which is the place  
in which there is the largest number of design schools, I believe).
I am not saying that it is negative "per se". Rather that this has  
left very little, if any time to discuss whether research in design  
(or in art and design) had/has to be grounded in the basic  
equivalence of knowledge<=>truth (in the popperian sense of  
falsifiable); or knowledge<=>consistent model of interpretation of  
what the world is. Or maybe another one ? I would even accept that  
the two (if not three) co-exist, as can co-exist different schools of  
philosophy or medecine.

(2) because I think that what makes the discussion endless —and the  
claims being rather opinions than positions— is that there is no  
ontological investigation. After all, is it possible to have a  
discipline, that aims at acting on the world to transform it, produce  
any body of evidence (either truths or models)? Isn't there a flaw — 
whether you take a kantian approach, or whether you take an  
analytical approach—, if you say that A is neither exactly A (today) - 
as it contains the potential to become B-, not yet exactly B  
(tomorrow) —as it cannot be B until we are tomorrow—, than A is  
undefinable ? It can be described, but it cannot be defined. So what  
is then its ontology (of A/B) ? So what is the status of knowledge  
and substantiation of such a discipline ?
It seems to me that this is somehow the claim of the systems approach  
even in its most sophisticated approaches (I am not an expert). I am  
not sure whether it fall short (I guess that if it was working we  
would have adopted it ?) because the models are not good enough, or  
rather because you cannot claim that a formal model is valid if at  
the same time you are stating that you are going to change it (in  
fact it says that the model is just a rethorical construction,  
basically made of inferences).

Best regards,

Jean

Le 16 oct. 11 à 18:16, Derek B. Miller a écrit :

> 1. I do not have a principled stance on method. Rather, I have a  
> principled stance on the status of claims to knowledge, and a  
> strong conviction that such claims be substantiated when they  
> impact the lives of others. That places a burden of responsibility  
> on those claiming the veracity of certain statements. I believe  
> this because of the unsubstantiated claims used to direct the  
> organs of state power. Claims for example (based on phrenology)  
> that Jews were less evolved than Aryans, for example. That claim  
> was unsubstantiated — not just because it was based on genocidal  
> racism which is morally abhorrent — but because the claims to  
> scientific veracity were utterly baseless and false, and yet were  
> held up as true and acted upon. If we are committed to the careful  
> substantiation of claims, and are repulsed by Sophistry, then we  
> must ask "how do you know that" when people make claims to  
> knowledge. I fail to see how anyone working in design (IF they are  
> doing research-based work, and I fully accept many are not, and  
> that's fine) can be, or should be, exempt from this standard.  
> You're the only people who don't need to prove why something is true?
>
> 2. A field is most welcome to define its own perspectives and  
> approaches so long as they are grounded in exactly the same base fo  
> substantiation the rest of us are subjected to. Design is not — and  
> has no right to be — an exception. We can see that by merely  
> replacing some words: You seem to oppose attempts made in the  
> phrenology research community to define its own perspectives and  
> approaches." Well, if its baseless, then it has nothing to do with  
> design per se. It has to do with any effort that purports to  
> substantial knowledge but will not make the necessary steps  
> required to demonstrate it. There is nothing about "design" that  
> militates against the creation of such knowledge. There is,  
> however, an evident camp of people who militate against the  
> requirement to do so.