Hi all

A lot of this debate concerning science fits with a program development
debate i am currently involved in concerning Indigenous science
(Feyerabend's 'voodoo'). This debate accepts two broad definitions of
'epistemologies' apparent in Western scientific discourse...the (Western
traditional) analytical approach and the (recently emerged in the
West)systemic approach. These two are complimentary, both are necessary for
understanding the world BUT one is not reducible to the other...you cannot
get good system understandings using trad analytical methods and no systems
approach produces detail sufficient for trad analytical knowledge.

These complimentary sets work well in partnership but problems arise when
we attempt to apply the formations of one within the domain of the
other..so a question like; what is originality or is this work original can
be seen to fall in between these approaches..i say this is because the
analytical tradition dominates the Western academy and Indigenous Science
(systemic knowledge traditions..of which design is a remnant in Western and
many other contexts)has been deemed to be mumbo-jumbo under the hegemony of
the trad Western paradigm.

Analytic approach may answer these questions... it is original if we havent
seen its type of analysis or product before...it is therefore novel, new
and extends on knowledge in a domain...in other words it is a discovery
within a linear conception of development (this will be rewarded in degrees
& $$$$)and is sufficient for a PHD and a fabulous career In this view
novelty is a prime value & principle (in and of itself)

Systems & Indigenous Science approach may answer these questions... new
formations are nested in old formations that are interdependant &
cyclic...originality is a natural product of living  systems, maintaining
diversity also sustains these systems... originality is therefore a prime
principle that emerges from and sustains diversity...a principle that we
must also employ to inform our valuing of systems (if we seek to maintain
them)

As an old art teacher who has seen hundreds of beginning artists draw and
never seen two works the same but have seen many graduate works that are
very similar there is a big difference between being original in analytical
and intellectual marketplace terms and speaking from or designing from an
origin.....in systems knowledge (Indigenous science)terms originality is
seeking an implicit & human origin in diversity that drives many possible
formations of originality. Some of these may well be very similar but then
we have found travelling companions that make the journey more
interesting... and if some are very different this attracts reverence to
the principle not the product.

In these programs we aim to use design to teach Indigenous Knowledge
knowing that the systems (eg mind, society and environment) are nested in
an interdependance that design makes sense of....design then is a tool for
systemic understanding  and as such it falls short  of analytical
definition...this 'shortcoming' is not an error in reason or logic but
evidence of designs origin in broader and more authentic logic ...ie
systems knowledge and Indigenous Science

norm





At 02:09 PM 7/08/01 +0100, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Kari-Hans Kommonen writes,
>
>"I must agree with Feyerabend (haven't read him - so I rely on
>Andrew's interpretation). My personal conclusion is that beliefs run
>the world. Some of them are based on science. Science is used as a
>justification for many crazy things in the world, as well as any
>other belief system. But many beliefs that are based on
>non-scientific evidence and thinking may be worth much more for
>humanity than the scientific ones."
>
>I wasn't going to respond to Andrew King's statement on Feyerabend.
>Andrew stated his view. While I didn't agree with Andrew's statement,
>it was a thread I didn't intend to pursue.
>
>Kari-Hans, your post draws me in.
>
>The statements you make on the issue of belief versus science involve
>a complex of unstated assumptions. These unstated assumptions deserve
>clarification.
>
>The post also confuses several terms and issues, and these, too,
>deserve clarification.
>
>One statement you make is simply astonishing.
>
>It is amazing to read that you "must agree with Feyerabend" even
>though you "haven't read him." To what are you agreeing? On what
>basis are you agreeing?
>
>You "rely on Andrew's interpretation." Andrew is stating a view on a
>specific issue. Andrew has not offered an interpretation of
>Feyerabend's statements or Feyerabend's view on this issue. Andrew
>stated his own interpretation of his view of Feyerabend.
>
>In an earlier post, I reported the comment of a colleague who directs
>the doctoral program of a distinguished university. This colleague
>complained to me that designers do not read. You are confirming the
>proposition.
>
>In no other field would it be considered appropriate to say of a
>major philosopher, "I must agree [with him although] I haven't read
>him."
>
>The peculiar entanglement of ideas in your post makes it valuable to
>respond. What Feyerabend did and did not say - and what it means -
>takes on a new relevance.
>
>There is a distinction to be drawn between the effort of individual
>thought and accepting claims without thinking them through on facts
>or merit. If you have not bothered to look into Feyerabend's own
>claims, you are stating that you agree with something about which you
>know nothing.
>
>The second paragraph of your post calls for academic renewal. It is
>hard to imagine what this can mean in the context of your note.
>
>You have agreed with statements on which you know nothing. The
>excellent Helsinki library network -- or even the Web -- could give
>you a short overview of Feyerabend's work.
>
>Evidence is readily available to you.
>
>You have drawn a conclusion without examining the slightest bit of evidence.
>
>This is not the behavior typical of academic renewal. Drawing
>conclusions without evidence typifies the medieval universities. It
>belongs to an age when scholars debated on angels, accepted
>Aristotelian physics, and practiced Ptolemaic astronomy.
>
>In those days, many university scholars simply accepted what a
>professor or colleague said without examining the issues or asserted
>facts on their own merit.
>
>You are accepting that a few sentence account for a massive body of
>asserted facts. You have decided that a one-paragraph note captures
>the rich and complex series of Feyerabend's arguments. Moreover, you
>are accepting that Andrew has interpreted them correctly.
>
>First, Andrew did not present Feyerabend's major arguments (e.g.,
>Feyerabend 1962, 1970, 1974, 1978, 1987, 1995). I am not sure that he
>intended to do so. Second, I am not sure that Andrew reported
>accurately Feyerabend's interpretation of his own views on these
>issues. Third, it is clear that Andrew reported his own
>interpretation, but it is not certain that you would accept them so
>blithely if you had bothered to read Feyerabend or to understand him
>before agreeing with Andrew.
>
>In fact, it is not certain that you would accept Feyerabend's views
>if you had bothered to read Feyerabend or to understand him in his
>own words.
>
>Perhaps you would. There is no way to know.
>
>Kari-Hans, I'm not sure that you intended to say what you seem to
>have said. That is exactly the point of my argument.
>
>There is no need for you to have stated your agreement with
>Feyerabend unless you agree with him. You cannot possibly agree or
>disagree with Feyerabend. Only after you read him will you have an
>opinion of your own.
>
>Rather, Andrew proposed an idea or an argument with which you do
>agree. I would have been curious to know which of his statements
>elicited your agreement. I would have been curious to see your views
>on those issues articulated.
>
>Debates sometimes fail to distinguish between argument from evidence
>and argument from principles. If you assert evidence, you must
>present evidence.
>
>Anyone may claim that Paul Feyerabend held a specific belief. If
>someone else challenges that claim, only the evidence of Feyerabend's
>own writings will settle the dispute.
>
>If not, we would have to settle the matter in some other way.
>
>The medieval universities often settled such differences on
>authority. If one person in an argument held a Ph.D. and the other
>did not, the one who held the Ph.D. was often right on evidence of
>authority. If one person was a professor and the other was not, the
>professor was right. By those standards, I would win many debates
>with designers.
>
>In the current world, other standards prevail. Perhaps you have a
>better haircut than I do, or simply more hair, or perhaps you drive a
>better car. If you do, perhaps your views are better than mine. By
>those standards, I would lose many debates with designers.
>
>The preferable situation is to subject claims to evidence. Having
>more hair will not make any difference to what Feyerabend said, and
>neither will a Ph.D.
>
>Unless everyone agrees to agree with me simply because I have a
>specific degree or title or a nice (though graying) beard, then it is
>my obligation to offer substantiation for my views.
>
>There is another kind of argument, though. This is argument from
>principle. It would have been sufficient for you to state the ideas
>with which you agree and to explain why you support them.
>
>Academic renewal involves more than science, to be sure. Even those
>who do no misinterpreting the nature and status of scientific claims
>recognize that philosophy, the humanities, the arts, and many other
>issues affect the university. Academic renewal requires clear
>thinking, regardless of the field.
>
>The call for a deeper and more humanistic philosophy, for greater
>understanding, for engaging the entire human being in thought and
>work is a goal with which many of us agree. There are, in fact,
>important steps toward producing "a more holistic, and sometimes a
>more perceptive, point of view."
>
>If philosophers, management scholars, humanists and scientists in
>many fields can move in this direction, then it is clearly possible
>"to do this in a 'new' academic fashion without losing the best
>characteristics of design as a field of activity."
>
>One aspect of meeting this challenge is clear thinking and clear writing.
>
>Holism is not voodoo. Holism respects the nature of systems in all
>their parts. To embrace the appropriate intuitive as many scientists
>do is not to neglect to work of the rational mind. Intuition by
>itself is not holistic. Holism requires the balance of intuition,
>emotion, rational thought, and engaged behavior.
>
>This, in fact, was one of Feyerabend's (1995: 181) great and valid
>points. He sought to bring reason and emotion together in scholarly
>production.
>
>Academic renewal requires both.
>
>-- Ken Friedman
>
>
>
>
>References
>
>Feyerabend, Paul. 1962. Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism.
>Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. III. Minneapolis:
>University of Minnesota Press.
>
>Feyerabend, Paul. 1970. "Consolations for the Specialist." Criticism
>and the Growth of Knowledge. Imre Lakatos, and Alan Musgrave,
>editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197-230.
>
>Feyerabend, Paul. 1974. Against Method. London: Verso.
>
>Feyerabend, Paul. 1978. Science in a Free Society. London: NLB.
>
>Feyerabend, Paul. 1987. Farewell to Reason. London: Verso.
>
>Feyerabend, Paul. 1995. Killing Time. The Autobiography of Paul
>Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
>
>
[log in to unmask]
Norman Sheehan
Lecturer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia