Ken

“Here we go round the Mulberry Bush…” “You say Tomato…”

A break already! If my assertions offend you I will desist from posting, as 
others are clearly electing to do. You asked me to be involved, you did not 
say I had to play by your rule set. If ideas without the foundation you 
require are tiresome and disruptive then some other forum is clearly called 
for.

 >Second, (2) much of the evidence postmodernists assert involves the
 >claim that there is no evidence and there are no fixed facts.

What no citation? ;-) As I understand it postmodernists question absolute 
evidence and absolute (fixed) facts. This is not merely a postmodernist 
critique. Popper (1968) argues that there can be no such confirmation, 
merely scholarly attempts to refute claims. Certainly some evidence and 
facts resist refutation within a particular representation, and they are 
what we refer to as fixed facts, but they are never so in an absolute 
sense. That we all agree some things to be the case, does not constitute an 
absolute fact. However, to make such an assertion is not then to consign 
everything to the tyranny of relativism, as you suggest.

 >How can one claim to offer evidence if no evidence is possible?
Evidence is possible, but is constituted by a particular interpretation. We 
all make assumptions about things. Where those assumptions are shared we 
have evidence that resists refutation within a particular framing of the 
problematic situation. The power of design is that it explicitly challenges 
and experiments with the framing of a situation, revealing new 
possibilities as it hides other aspects. It is that very nature of design 
that Schon attends to, and what he tries to articulate as a possible 
epistemology of practice.

 >I am getting far-fetched here, but no more far-fetched than the notion 
that a quantum theory of gravitation has political implications of any kind.
Out of my depth here, but is a quantum theory of gravitation not a 
particular construct, based on technical rationality, and therefore 
empowering one culture over another? In any case, subscribing to a 
particular epistemological framework is a political move, and so whilst 
stretching the case, I do see there are political implications in the 
quantum theory of gravitation…
Of course there is a tyranny in relativism, but that is not the necessary 
consequence of an interpretive account of knowing. As you indicate, we all 
on this list share perspectives on certain issues. We would all accept that 
killing another person is unjust. But where do we sit on abortion or 
euthanasia? Does your proud history of factual evidence provide the answer 
to either of these dilemma’s? Will a definition of either from the most 
learned encyclopedia provide a solution for someone facing such a question? 
It will, but not for us all. Stanley Fish (1989), just to bring another 
widely quoted and controversial author into play, has much to say about 
evidence and interpretation.

 >Reverence for truth is the touchstone of good research. Truth requires 
evidence.
Truth also requires interpretation.

 >Rather than assertions - what Jan Verwijnen once labeled position without
 >discourse - the simplest and best approach is to state claims and offer 
evidence
 >in warrant of the claims.
I disagree. Not entirely, but this is probably something of a swan-song, 
so… There are contributors to this list who do not need to provide me with 
any evidence what-so-ever for their assertions to be meaningful and 
warranted. Such contributions come in the context of a broader discourse in 
which their evidence and arguments have been presented, and I don’t need to 
see everything they claim made explicit to find value and derive 
understanding. Also, there are assertions made that have no evidence and no 
context of discourse on which to judge them, but I judge them 
none-the-less, and find value and derive understanding from some of them. 
On the contrary, there are claims made with bountiful evidence that are 
based on assumptions that I would question, and I dismiss these as of no 
value and derive no new understandings from them, despite their claims and 
evidence. Your position here appears to be to impose a regulation on 
communication and community that is helpful and powerful in many regards, 
but despite your personal great endeavours still has us disagreeing on how 
to discuss things! This kind of disagreement, as you have indicated, has 
been around for a long time and is probably tiresome for us all. The list 
probably needs another direction. You asked me to contribute, but my form 
of contribution is unacceptable to you so I will return to the ranks of 
lurking  shaking my head, biting my lip and reading Pooh Bear.

Fish, S. (1989) Doing what comes naturally. Duke Uni Press.
Popper, K. (1968) Conjectures and refutations, Harper & Row.

--Sid.