Dear Klaus and Ken and all,
The difference between Klaus' and Ken's two positions is perhaps best seen
as a TIMING issue, rather than epistemology.
For Klaus' position (and human-centred research to a large extent) the
reality of creating knowledge and theories is that they are created by
people and their communication with all the confusions, biases, politics and
manipulations and errors and oddities that that brings. This is addressed
at all points throughout the research and knowledge creation process and
critiques of it after.
The scientific research position ( and universe-centred research to a large
extent) also assumes the reality of creating knowledge and theories is that
they are created by people and their communication with all the confusions,
biases, politics and manipulations and errors and oddities that that
brings.
In the scientific method the same human-related issues as Klaus referred
are addressed. The difference is addressing those issues is front loaded
timewise. Instead of addressing them at all stages, the scientific method
uses apriori research and analyses that identifies the most common
human-related issues and ways to address them. The scientific research
process combines this with a knowledge creation and review process that is
intended to also act to address and minimise the problems Klaus identified.
Both approaches include and address the same human issues and problems of
knowledge creation. The only significant difference is the timing of when
it is addressed. Klaus model - throughout. Ken's scientific research -
prior.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
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: Thursday, 17 April 2014 3:57 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: RE: Human-centred and universe-centred perspectives in discussions
about design
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.as
p
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|