Of course that books don’t contain knowledge in the same way they don’t contain unicorns. In fact nothing contain unicorns since they are fantastic beasts (and free spirits).
It is obvious that books, in fact, contain arrangements of 2D signs that are intended to communicate and (this is important in book history) retain something that, being de-codified, at least produce “Thought” in the reader.
This is obvious.
We all know that boats that work properly float. So when I’m saying “I went by boat to Brazil” I don’t have to say “I went to Brazil on a boat that floats” (unless you are a stand-up comedian). So when I’m saying that I learn that there were Pre Plinean eruptions from a book because it contained knowledge about volcanoes I’m of course omitting what books obviously are in a limited and correct definition. I’m jumping over all that to the instrumental purpose of knowing about volcanoes safely in my apartment, and choosing an Encyclopedia of Volcanoes to do so.
But I understand that all this might be problematic.
So I’m rephrasing my original question:
Can we learn from books?
Thanks,
Eduardo
Eduardo Corte-Real
PhD Arch.
Associate Professor
Professor Associado com Agregação
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Av. Dom Carlos I, nº4, 1200-649 Lisboa, Portugal
T: +351 213 939 600
<http://www.iade.pt/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|