Gunnar,
I agree with your perspective. But I'm not quite sure we're talking about
the same things.
Yes, obviously, all products offered for sale have implied warranties. My
engineering background makes me keenly aware of those conditions and why
they exist.
And yes, there are many circumstances under which company can do very
smarmy things to people (fraud, etc).
I was thinking more of the analogy between the process of refining designs
iteratively over time and over product versions on the one hand, and
typical "experimentation" on the other.
Couldn't one argue, for instance, that Google's Material Design is the
result of experimentation on us with previous UI designs? Couldn't the
iPhone 6 be thought of as the result of experimentation on us via all
previous version of iPhone? It's not a perfect fit; but I wonder if we
might more crisply understand design by thinking about how designing is
different from experimenting.
I also wonder if there might be some consistencies between the ethics of
experiments and ethics in designing that might inform the development of a
Code of Ethics for designers. (Something that, as an engineer, I'm quite
fond of.)
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
On 23 June 2015 at 11:08, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Phil,
>
> I don’t have a clear vision of what the rules are or should be but I
> wonder if concentrating on experimenting or not experimenting is a dead
> end. Is the ethical question one of lying and/or fraud?
>
> If company X releases product P, they make some overt or implied
> warrantees. P will do what we say it will. (It will not maim your children
> or cause you physical harm. . .) And company X will attempt to make money
> in the process. If we discover that company X has no reason to believe that
> P will do what they say it will and are not attempting to make money but
> rather to discover what P does, there is a lie. If they are attempting to
> gain from the lie (say, by learning what P does or harvesting information
> about you), then the lie becomes fraud.
>
> So rather than making informed consent into an imperative, is it more
> useful to see most uninformed consent and non-consent as subsets of an
> imperative against fraud?
>
> I haven’t tried to poke holes in this idea so I hope others will do that
> work for me. (I think that sentence informs the consent of anyone who might
> reply.)
>
>
> Gunnar
>
> Gunnar Swanson
> East Carolina University
> graphic design program
>
> http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Gunnar Swanson Design Office
> 1901 East 6th Street
> Greenville NC 27858
> USA
>
> http://www.gunnarswanson.com
> [log in to unmask]
> +1 252 258-7006
>
> > Fil:
> > Say company X releases product P. It's a "radical" (but not dangerous)
> > reconceptualization of some existent product class.
> >> Ken;
> >>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/please-corporations-experiment-on-us.html
> >>> me:
> >>> "Research ethics" seems to be the same as "biomedical research ethics"
> in
> >>>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/06/alice_goffman_s_on_the_run_is_the_sociologist_to_blame_for_the_inconsistencies.html
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|