Hi Francois,

The suggestions in your mail below are very useful. 

I would only make one clarification. Instead of science, let's talk about knowledge production. Science is only one of the modes of knowledge production. Science is a phenomenon that has emerged in a particular cultural area at a particular time. From that position, all the rest can be conceptualized as knowledge production activities, but not scientific activities. Also, I want to mention that science is a social institution. There are several science paradigms. Positivism is only one of them. I would like that people differentiate between these and do not insist to use only positivist methodology in order to claim scientific status of their research. 

I am not sure we can talk about science beyond the phenomena of science as a social institution and a mode of knowledge production. Everything else is something else. Myth, religion, and other social institutions also contribute to knowledge production. However, this is not science. There is a concept of humanitarian sciences that is used mostly in Central and Eastern Europe. With this conceptualization certain knowledge production activities in the humanities are granted scientific status and incorporated under that umbrella. In the US there is a differentiation between sciences and humanities. If you don't do experiments and surveys, it is hard to prove that you are doing science. In the last decades there is a strong movement to emancipate the humanistic paradigms of science and to make projects with that methodology eligible for Federal funding. These humanitarian paradigms are usually known as qualitative research methods. Unfortunately, most qualitative researchers do not perceive themselves that way. According to them, qualitative research is a new way to do research. No connections to its centuries old history. 

Because of its contribution to engineering and technological progress, science spread all over the world and become an international standard of knowledge production. The concept of science was adopted by many cultures. In many cases it was directly or indirectly imposed by a number of institutions and social mechanisms. Colonialism was a major tool. However, many cultures adopted science willingly because of its perceived contributions to technological progress and social development. In some cultures, developing and claiming science has become a matter of social status.

In the last two decades, there is backlash against the social dominance of science. In many cultures there are movements for emancipation of their traditional knowledge production systems. However, this emancipation is ill-conceived because in most cases it is intended to be done under the umbrella of science. The internalization of science has pressed such cultures to fight for emancipation of their knowledge production systems by fitting them within the framework of science. This is forced by current international standards for academic productivity, status, and prestige. This has also affected the knowledge production systems in the arts and other areas of academia. 

Currently there is a excessive pressure on doing science even in domains that are not the greatest beneficiaries of such approach. Designers can attest to this. They are forced to defend their academic contributions and positions by engaging in scientific research, often against their will and against the logic of their profession/field. 

Currently there are objections to the ideas presented above from both the West and the East. The West in its extreme form accepts only Positivist views of science. The East is concerned that they may not be able to present their knowledge production system as science, if science is granted only local status. 

These problems can be easily resolved if people start thinking at a metasystem level, in terms of knowledge production, instead of in terms of science. Then we will develop a very different attitude towards each system. We will see better their advantages, disadvantages, and areas of application. 

One paradox is that this can be done best from the position of philosophy of science. Another paradox is that current philosophy of science is rooted in Rationalism with all ensuing consequences for understanding knowledge production modes. Sometime ago, at a conference, I talked about a deconstructivist approach to philosophy of science (if this makes sense and if it is possible) and the development of a completely new way of seeing knowledge production. At this time, there are no substantive achievements and it is not clear how deconstructivism can accommodate such ideas. Deconstructivist thinking is both in its early years and hasn't proved itself as a history-long way of conceptualizing the world. It has gained strong positions at philosophical level, but hasn't produced much at disciplinary level. This discrepancy slows down the penetration of deconstruction at disciplinary level, diminishes the trust in it, and keeps it only as a fancy new way of self-presentation. However, there is promise in some of the deconstructivist ideas about knowledge production.

Best wishes,

Lubomir

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francois Nsenga
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 10:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Science in China [was] Galileo and the Church -- a Footnote

Dear Ken, Jude, and Colleagues

Thank you, Ken, to remind us of the excellent documentation by Joseph
Needham on China and science.

And thank you, Jude, for you trying to enlighten us on the Daoism
interpretation of nature. Please do keep trying, and hopefully come up with
a more concise and workable view guidelines on Daoism and knowledge of
nature, and how this knowledge has been (and perhaps still is) 'translated'
into building and usage of material culture within its zone of influence.
Contrary to your reservation, saying that all this discussion doesn't have
anything to do with "the proper business of discussing design", we are
indeed discussing designing, in the sense so 'authoritatively' suggested by
Don in http://jnd.org/dn.mss/the_research-practice_gap_1.html

Don enjoins us, designers, to become the "translators" of scientific
knowledge, now of Western origin, but why not that of the entire humanity,
into prescriptions immediately practical into CEO's office, onto the
manufacturing floor, and in the market place as well as (my addition) in
all daily life environments. This is the reason why I here reiterate my
early request to all: would other listers instruct us also on the Islamic
view on science and resulting material culture? On the Hinduist view and
ways? On the Shintoist view and ways? On the Buddhist view and ways? On the
Maya view and ways?, etc. etc. And I personally shall come up with a
tentative glimpse on the Bantu view as well as that of the so-called
"Negro-hamitic" people, on how those views translated into pre-colonial
material cultures of the sub-Saharan Africa, and how those views and ways
can eventually be re-vitalized, actualized, and shared, to the benefit of
the entire humanity, now that we have become just one.

Regards

Francois
Montreal