Dear Terry,
Notions of what is right and wrong are not what is needed
here, I think. To ask or say what or who is right or wrong
serves only to setup a false debate and establish ill-founded
distinctions.
Disagreeing with what Klaus says and/or the stance from which
he says it does not make him or what he says wrong, nor right.
It should make it interesting, thought provoking, and useful.
Having a different and alternative point of view or
explanation also doesn't make Klaus and what he says wrong.
It does mean, however, that you need engage with what Klaus
says (on this occasion) and carefully explain how you're
alternative explanation differs from what he says and why,
and how this leads us to something interesting and useful.
Argument by assertion and empty value judgements won't do
this.
Best regards,
Tim
===============================================
On Dec 12, 2012, at 09:27 , Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> I would agree, if Klaus was right.
> Klaus privileges language and frames his view of wicked problems through a
> language lens regardless of whether it is appropriate or not.
> The position described in Klaus' 6 points also depends on a particular view
> of what it is to be human.
> I've been suggesting there is a different explanation that goes beyond.
> Best wishes,
> terry
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|