 |
 |
Hooray for Eduardo and Don! We need both of their contributions and a bridge (Eduardo?) besides. Charles Burnette On 6/9/04 11:54 PM, "Don Norman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Let me state that I am in violent agreement with Eduardo's comment. > > I certainly do not want to say that science is the only way. Cultural studies > are essential. Different points of views are essential. Indeed, I once stated > -- and I will repeat it now -- that science studies what it knows how to study > and assumes that everything else is unimportant. But quite often, science > studies the trivia, because it can do so, and ignores the most essential > elements of life, because it has no idea how to do so. > > My only issue is that when non-scientists talk about scientific matters, they > tread just as gently as I should tread when I talk about art, and beauty, > love, > and aesthetics from the cultural, non-scientific point of view. > > Emotions, consciousness, and memory, as an example, are part of science. I > claim > that "visceral beauty" is a part of science, because it is mostly determined > by > automatic, pre-wired responses to perceptions that have evolved over time and > are part of our biological heritage. Beauty, however, is highly culturally > determined, and here, science has little to say. Many (most?) of the issues > in > design are outside the purview of science. As a result, we absolutely must > have > other approaches. > > Does this help? > > --- > (Just came back from the opening meeting for the Stanford design school (or > d.school, as they call themselves. Just agreed to teach a course there in the > Winter (and a course at Northwestern in the Fall). Exciting times.) > > Don