 |
 |
Dear All, While it seems to me that Terry is mistaken in his reading of Peter Murphy's inaugural lecture, I don't want to debate this. I offered some comments to Terry off-list, but I am unwilling to post an argument here without substantiating my views. The one issue that should be clear is that Peter Murphy is not claiming causal relationships. He is observing and describing empirical facts, offering some interpretations of those facts, and questioning the way we approach research funding and higher education. Murphy builds a careful argument and substantiates his argument with carefully referenced data. I would be far more inclined to consider and debate Terry's analyses if he offered greater substantiation for his views. Terry and I have debated that issue before. In my view, Terry demands greater rigour in the arguments of those whom he disputes than he offers in his own analysis and disagreement. Murphy may be wrong, but he provides evidence for his assertions. This allows each reader to decide on the quality of Murphy's data and arguments. If you wish to reach your own conclusions, you can read the inaugural lecture for yourself, and see the PowerPoint slide show. I have posted both in PDF format to my Academia.edu page in the "Teaching Documents" section: http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman Murphy is both a social scientist and a scholar in the humanities who examines social phenomena to draw conclusions based on social facts. He is not simply applying abstract mathematical analysis to social facts to seek truths in power laws. Terry writes as if most of this is a matter of social technology determined by reinforcing loops and balancing loops. It may be the case that Terry is right, but he does not offer any demonstration for his claims. If he wishes to persuade me of his views, he will eventually have to provide evidence rather than abstract claims to an abstract version of social engineering or systems thinking. If this seems blunt, I apologise, but Terry's argument with respect to Peter Murphy's work resembles his earlier claims concerning power laws. Given the lack of evidence, there is no way to know whether Terry is right or wrong. In his earlier reply on power laws, Terry did not provide well argued evidence for his position. He presented links to a series of papers that simply demonstrated the point that power laws exist in many places, along with examples of power laws in specific cases. He never demonstrated any reason to believe that his hypothesis is correct. It seems to me that the current argument is of a similar hypothetical nature. I've made it clear that I disagree and I've said why. Writing the argument to support Murphy's views takes time and work I can't invest at this time. Fortunately, I don't need to support Murphy's views. Anyone who is interested can read Peter Murphy's inaugural lecture to reach his or her own conclusion. Again, the lecture and slides are available in the "Teaching Documents" section of http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman Warm wishes, Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------