Dear Terry,
It is possible to consider this particular range of issues without considering the entire system. I might be mistaken, of course, but I do not see this as a failure of plain logic. Within reason, it is possible to consider subsystems without considering the entire philosophy of science.
To ask for reflections on evidence without discussing all aspects of the relationship between evidence and theory is not a case of “look[ing] at evidence as if it were independent of theory.” This is your view. I disagree. I accept that you are trying to resolve what you see a contradiction. I do not see this as a contradiction.
You ask whether I am trying “to conjure a broad-brush, superficial, naïve picture of evidence in design that could be used in political and funding negotiations in academia.”
My goodness. I’d say that you are making a heavy-handed, obtuse, inflammatory accusation in the form of a question. But that is not what you are doing. Is it?
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|