Hi Klaus,
Thank you for your reply to Ken.
Reflecting on what you write (and have written previously) I think you are
in a detailed way making the case for the opposite.
Rather, you make strong points about how human activity is at the heart of
research, theory making and understanding (of the universe or whatever) and
that this compromises or undercuts all attempts to create knowledge from a
universe-centred perspective.
I agree. Your arguments are wholly true from all perspectives.
Except there is more that is possible.
The role of the universe-centred perspective on modelling the universe and
predicting its behaviour is exactly to address those problems you have
identified.
It is done by processes that act to stabilise human contributions in ways
that humans acting unsupported are unable - like auto-steering on sailboats
makes boats sail better than when steered by human helmspersons.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff
Sent: Tuesday, 15 April 2014 11:04 AM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: RE: Human-centred and universe-centered perspectives in discussions
about design
well,
ken,
as you say, issues in the philosophy of science are complex and your feeling
that my saying that the idea of research as a search for universal truths is
epistemologically questionable is due to its complexity. so you are right
rhetorically but not substantially. i took too much for granted.
when i say epistemologically questionable i mean worth questioning the
possibility of finding universal truths in the universe. when i said
"debunked" i had in mind, for example the writings by ludwig fleck on the
history of a fact, showing how the conception of syphilis evolved as it
accommodated the often strange conceptions of different generations of
scientific communities with no final understanding in sight. or thomas
kuhn's work on the shifting paradigms in science, at each juncture claiming
universal truths only to be replaced by new construction. or bruno latour's
study of laboratory work which showed it to be guided by all kinds of
strange conceptions, including to get appropriate funding. or the
theoretical physicist john wheelers' "participatory anthropic principle"
which asserts that researchers are participants in bringing about
explanations of the universe's functioning which cannot exist without human
participation. or werner heisenberg's famous statement that we cannot study
nature only nature's response to our method of asking questions. i think
they support what i had summarized in a few sentences.
i'd say that projects like "trying to understand how the universe works" are
"epistemologically questionable" as they assumes the ability to take a god's
eye perspective on how it works, failing to admit that real people have to
undertake such a project. researchers who pursue their careers, bring their
own often unacknowledged methodological commitments and intellectual
imperialist ambitions to such projects, or have vested interest in seeing
particular theories validated or findings what they expect to find.
i think we agree that designers need to know something about how things work
in the domain of human practices of living in which a design could
intervene. these communities may be small or large, even have global
affects.
but this can hardly be construed as a universalist perspective. rather as
one that embraces everything that a particular design could affect,
especially the communities that could be affected, and potentially opposed
or embrace a design. in my opinion, to facilitate professional design
practices, in my opinion, this is what design research should aim at.
ken, you tried to be very clear about what you saying, looking at the
etymology of words and the source of quotations. i appreciate that. but i
invite you to question the epistemology of claims that escape of the realm
of human understanding and language use into the metaphysics of religious
claims. i hope that designers stay on the ground of creating realities for
others.
research that merely explains how the universe works without human
participation and without considering its effect is usually undertaken by
researchers who oppose improvements, keep things as is. designers have
better things to do than what the current universe is like.
cheers
klaus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
