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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|