dear ken,
i am glad that you say you agree with most of what i said. to me this is not entirely a question of agreement or disagreement but of understanding what you write.

you made three points:

first, you are correct, your earlier post did not claim gravity to be an "incontrovertible" fact, this was my addition. but following your pointing this out was precisely what i criticized you for. please read carefully. 

you said: "I describe gravitation as a fact, but there are several ways to describe this fact."

you refer to facts. what is a fact? the word is of latin origin, facere, factum, being made, and in english related to factory and manufacture. the literature i cited supports that use. (i am of course aware that in english if came to mean that what followed a deed or action. fleck's history of a scientific fact shows a compelling example how that scientific fact came to be made (by communities of scientists and over several centuries).

now, if you were to accept facts as being made, the first proposition of yours "i describe gravity as a fact" would be self-contradictory as you do not describe gravity as being made. the second proposition "there are several ways of describing this fact." reveals that you do not think facts are made. that they are (incontrovertibly) exist, independent of its multiple ways of describing it. this has little to do with opinions on which you can agree or not, but with epistemological confusions.

second, about copernicus. by shifting ptolemy's assumption of taking the earth as the center of the universe to that of the sun yielded far simpler descriptions of planetary movements. ptolemy could describe planetary movements too but epicycles required were difficult to describe mathematically. copernicus did not recognize the cultural significance of the simpler description. this was recognized by others. galileo's stubborn insistence that the earth turns around the sun shattered the religious belief of the church of earth as being the center of the god-created universe. actually, you may not believe it, but i would side with pope urban, who was very sympathetic to science, but told galileo that the job of scientists is to describe what they observe, make measurements that improve navigational devices, and predict astronomical happenings, but they had no method to determine what actually exists. of course, urban had in mind the ulterior motive to privilege the church's ability to decide what exists beyond descriptions. his assertion about the ability of science proved correct. today, we believe there are numerous solar systems in the universe and the conception of a solar-centered universe is no longer sustainable. 

third, i did not challenge you about your ability to speak of design, but to know what designers do not know presupposes that you are sure you do. -- another claim with epistemological implications.

i realize that this has not too much to do with design, but i hope it questions terry's call for designers to take a universe-centered view. i suggest that designers should not compete with religion. we have much to do on earth and defining design research in universalist terms discredits professional design.

klaus 




-----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 Ken Friedman
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Human-centred and universe-centred perspectives in discussions about design

Dear Klaus,

Thanks for your reply.

This is so nuanced that I can't disagree with you without setting bounds on every statement. I don't disagree with what you say in most respects, but I would also say that on some issues I both agree and also see that there are other ways to look at these issues.

I have three mild disagreements.

First, I didn't write that gravitation is "an incontrovertible fact." I describe gravitation as a fact, but there are several ways to describe this fact.

Second, I'd argue that Copernicus did more than offer a simpler description of planetary motion than Ptolemy did. The conceptual difference between the two systems is more than a debate between two mathematical propositions. This was a simpler description, but the differences are far greater. And it remains the case that the Ptolemaic model was wrong with its description of the sun and planets orbiting the earth with epicycles to save the appearances of planetary motion.

It's quite right that I have not interviewed every designer to discover what each designer does not know. Nevertheless, since 1972 I've studied designers, design schools, and design school curriculum at design programs or art and design departments at around 2,000 colleges, universities, and independent design schools. Some of these studies involved direct visits and interviews. Others used surveys or documentation. I've also read numerous journal papers and submission, read and heard even more conference papers, and read nearly as great a number of journal and conference submissions. Without claiming that I know what all designers do not know, I feel comfortable in asserting that based on a large representative sample, I have a reasonable idea of what a large number of designers do not know.

While I could add details, I'm happy to rely on the descriptions of gaps and problems in Don Norman's article titled "Why Design Education Must Change" at:

http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp

and Don Norman and Scott Klemmer's article titled "How Design Education Must Change" at:

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140325102438-12181762-state-of-design-how-design-education-must-change

What designers generally don't know about research in terms of the skills deficits and methodological understanding is the focus of my paper on "Writing for the PhD in Art and Design. Issues for Research Supervisors and Research Students." This is not complete, but it is extensive. The paper is available in the section on PhD training, skills, and supervision at:

https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

With regard to the rest, I agree with much of what you say, and I also say that these issues must be considered each within a frame to make sense of them. I hope I have not thrown anything out with the bathwater - but rather I acknowledge that these issues require careful framing and analysis, something I can't provide here.

Warm wishes,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia

--

Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

-snip-

you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting that I was "debunking science, the scientific method or physics". I was suggesting something more nuanced and that is to look at the language or more specifically the discourse within which different disciplines construct their own and often incompatible realities with the explicit claim to study the universe as is. the work of fleck, Kuhn, and several others that I mentioned (and I could have added kant, vico, rorty, and more) shows the frequent shifts in theories and paradigms while claiming that the latest version is what the universe is, or in a more moderate version, claiming to have come closer to the truth. the historians and scientific practitioners I mentioned suggest that all we know is what we say, write, or believe, not what is. this was my main point of objecting to the preposterous belief that we could knew what really is and how things work without human interest in that.

I did not say and would not say that that paradigm shifts radically change everything. evidence suggest that scientific constructions evolve, build on each other and eliminate constructions that are inconsistent with current beliefs. but inconsistency has nothing to do with the universe only with our descriptions.

you say "The Copernican revolution rendered the Ptolemaic picture of the solar system wrong because it was wrong." copernicus merely offered descriptions of planetary motions that were simpler than the ptolemaic ones. current theoretical physicists question even the the existence of gravity as a force (you previously said this was an incontrovertible fact). you are not alone in claiming to know what is. i side with all the writers I mentioned who acknowledge that we cannot observe reality without observing it. the claim to know what is in front of our eyes would mean the ability of jumping out of our bodies and seeing the universe without us.

you claim that scientific theories do not presume taking a god's eye view and end this paragraph by saying that gods don't do science. indeed, i haven't met a god to ask her whether they do, but i understand quite well what scientists do in language. to me, saying that "X is true" does not acknowledge the position of its observer or the writer who says so. it presumes privileged access to what reality is against which the validity of X could be checked. It takes that god's eye view (hillary putnam) you claim scientists do not take when formulating their theories. I read scientific reports and I can tell you the god's eye view is quite common. in the sciences, we cherish inter-observer agreement, which is not the same as truth. you make several factual claims without admitting who told you so.

you speculate that I am "not always aware of what designers today don't know." I grant you that and I never claimed I would. but your statement suggests that you do know what today's designers don't know. I would suggest that there are far too many designers to interview and to ask what they do not know is not likely to be answered. you omitted in your brief biography of mine that I have practiced design for many years while teaching other topics as well, working with big companies and in several educational settings.

I think we should be a little bit more humble in generalizing, especially to the universe, and instead become aware of the language we are using. in my reading, saying "X is such and such" is a universalist statement as it does not allow anyone to examine who the writer is, what methods led that writer to conclude that "X is such and such" and suggesting X to exist independent of human involvement in X makes critical examination difficult.

-snip-



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------