 |
 |
Dear Klaus, You offer good points. I agree that the word "is" may be seen as too strong a term without careful delimitation. Short thesis topics use simple, clear statements and questions. The answers are not simple, nor will they be simplistic. (Andrew also stated his problems in brief form before elaborating. See list of problems and topics, next.) My writings on such themes as science explicitly state that a rich and sometimes ambiguous territory clusters around a number of topics, issues, theories, and practices. In using the term "is," I simply state that there "is" an [entity, process, social construct, field, [open term] ] called science or philosophy or positivism. This use of the term "is" says nothing about the content of that [entity, process, social construct, field, [open term] ]. It does not mean that there "is" a single or uniform way to describe the [entity, process, social construct, field, [open term] ]. The term "is" simply states the fact that there is a territory of theory and practice identified by a term. I think we all agree that this is so. (If we do not agree that there is a [entity, process, social construct, field, [open term] ] that carries the LABEL of science, philosophy or positivism, then I will stand corrected.) My use of the term "is" was intended to open the field for conversation, not to limit or close it. If my answers fail to satisfy anyone when I provide them, please contest my answers. As before, I will not offer my answers for some time. Thanks, Klaus, for sharpening up my use of the term "is." Best regards, Ken From Klaus Krippendorff's post: -snip- how interesting!!! all five questions are questions that a scientist must ask who wants to determine what something really IS (a scientist who then easily gets into trouble with others see things differently, finding that what IS is quite arbitrary) what about asking the question what people actually do who say they do science, or what do we want to call a particular practice? once someone takes responsibility for what s/he says it IS, we can argue whether the name is useful for our conversation to go where we want it to go. klaus At 08:59 AM 4/15/02 +0200, Ken Friedman wrote: Dear Colleagues, Jose Aravena's brief post raises five more issues for consideration. The nature of the questions he asks requires us to consider these issues: Problem 11: What is science? Problem 12: What is philosophy? Problem 13: Is design research beset by positivist fundamentalism? Problem 14: What is positivism, anyway? Problem 15: Why are definitions useful? -snip- -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Leadership and Organization Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University