JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  July 2018

PHD-DESIGN July 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Rancorous discourse birthed by the death of truth?

From:

Paul Mike Zender <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:52:02 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (49 lines)

Dear list:


The Pew Research Center wrote on October 19, 2017: 
“In late 2016, Oxford Dictionaries selected “post-truth” as the word of the year, defining it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/10/19/the-future-of-truth-and-misinformation-online/

I have a hypothesis that perhaps has enough merit that others can on the list can flesh it out. It has nothing particular to do with design but everything to do with discussion, the reason for this list.


Hypothesis

Emphasis on personal belief as opposed to universal truth makes any challenge to a person’s truth claim a challenge to them as a person which in turn activates deeply-seated defense response mechanisms in them. 
In short, public discussion based on personal belief will always be acrimonious. 
This is a key factor driving the hostility so prevalent in current discourse not only on this list but seemingly everywhere.

How many just now are thinking along with that famous post-modern philosopher Pontius Pilate “What is truth?” (N.T. Wright, 201 Gifford lecture). Without tracing the fall of truth, most will agree that in general today truth no longer means that some things are definitely true and other things are not true (antithesis as opposed to synthesis). Though many may still affirm their personal truth, “true for me,” universal truth has fallen nearly off the scholarly mind map. On the other hand, as late as the 1970’s, Francis Schaffer proposed that we can have true truth, truth whose opposite is falsehood, a truth sufficiently descriptive of reality to be called universally true without being exhaustively true (Schaffer, The God Who is There, Escape from Reason, He is There and He is Not Silent). If the word ‘reality’ provokes in you the question “whose reality” then simply consider yourself a contemporary thinker and proof of the point that universal truth is out of fashion. 


Corrective

If this hypothesis is true then reengagement with the concept of universal truth is an obvious corrective step. But rather than swing the pendulum from one extreme to another perhaps we could refine our language and conceptual models. Perhaps we can distinguish on the one hand between personal knowledge and personal truth, with personal truth being defined as our unique and distinct personal experience, and personal knowledge as that which grows from our accumulated personal experiences that we have reflected upon and verified over time. On the other end of the spectrum would be universal knowledge being defined as comprehensively shared experiences of reality and universal truth as the discussed, debated, and verified descriptions (models) that correspond to reality all the time, everywhere (sufficiently but not exhaustively, per Schaffer). I intend to re-read Michael Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge to reflect on this more.

This mindset would restore public debate because it respects personal truth or knowledge in its context thereby removing the sense of challenge experienced by the person presenting it. For everyone else, by removing the distortion that personal truth is universal truth, the community becomes free to discuss how the personal truth fits with their experience and more broadly within universal models of reality. Seeing truth along a spectrum of applicability, from personal to universal, seems to allow for a reasoned discussion that still allows things to be true or false. In short, “true for you” means just that, no more. 


Corrective Applied

Application of the corrective action based on the hypothesis might look like this on the PhD Design list. 

Being a public list, we might agree that our aim will be on developing knowledge and making truth claims toward the universal end of the spectrum. Generalizable (universal) truth seems the point of a scholarly discussion forum. Truth claims from a personal or group context would be noted as such, for example “it is my/our experience…”, and submitted for discussion as being truth, a description of reality, from their context and valued as such and considered for their potential contribution to the whole. In short, we would avoid confusing personal or local truth with the universal truth. In all of this the recognition would be that truth claims often move from particular to universal and that the list’s orientation being toward the universality of reality and models of it, a challenge to a truth claim is judged not by whether it corresponds to reality for someone/group but to how broad a swath of reality it applies.

To illustrate with an example, a recent discussion involved the concept “mansplaining.” Using the universal truth orientation above, the discussion would accept that mansplaining does occur while recognizing that it is neither universal nor limited to men. Hence, we might agree that prolix, condescending monologue should be avoided as benefitting neither the speaker (allowed to revel in their arrogance) nor the hearer (subjected to demeaning rehearsal of what they already know) but that labeling such as “mansplaining” is inappropriate because the tedious activity it describes is not limited to men and labeling it as such is thus false and demeaning to a gender.



I would appreciate some thoughtful response to this hypothesis, perhaps some references to those who have thought this through much more than I have. As I noted, I personally plan to re-read Polanyi as a test of the merit of this hypothesis. Mostly, I hope it starts some thought on ways to move this list toward more fruitful, less rancorous, discussion. I'm afraid calls to "be nice" are inadequate.

Best… 

Mike Zender
[log in to unmask]


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager