I decided to write again after several strange posts about science. (Actually, strange only for me, may be customary for the rest of the list.) > (Rosan's text)I was hoping someone would tap on a feeling that I had: this dichotomy is a construction and it is a reflection of a particular frame of mind or a particular value system. (I am slowly learning to recognize and state my own intention more accurately), (REPLY) Of course, Rosan, it is a construction, but not because of the reasons modern leftists put forward, but because both activities are human constructions and humans have control over them. They are human games and Homo Ludens can change the rules. If you can make an activity that integrates science and design, you welcome. I mentioned that a hundred times, but it does not fit to your gut feelings. >(Rosan's text) I think, please correct me if I am wrong, that in the above quoted statements, science is equated with research. And subsequently, the rest of the argument is framed within this particular perspective and that any other kind of approach to inquiry can easily be dismissed as ‘not research’, a necessary dichotomy. >Please note that I am not doubting the differences between the practice of science and design, (not this moment at least), I am questioning the effects of ‘science’ being interchangeable with ‘ research’ on any discussion about research. (REPLY) It is astonishing how many people (many of them professors and doctors) have incorrect understanding about science. Science is a social institution. Most of the people equate science with the positivist paradigm in science. When science emerged and the process of institutionalization started, the predominant, if not the only mode of thinking was the positivist one. Some of you might reply that science is what positivists do. But I will ask you, if this is so, then, what about the notion of paradigms? If science and positivism are one and the same phenomenon, then there is no room for and need of the concept of paradigm. The very fact that such a concept was constructed (concepts are artifacts, they are constructed) indicates that within the social institution of science there are multiple ways of thinking, not just positivism. The understanding of science as only what positivists do is an Anglophone notion. In the Germanic cultural region, the concept of science is much more inclusive and it embraces all existing paradigms, not only the positivist one. Germans have the term Kulturwissenschaften or sciences for culture. In the Anglophone tradition, these sciences are referred to with the term humanities and actually are excluded from the realm of science. This has serious implications for the development of science and the scientific community in the Anglophone tradition and the exclusion of other paradigms that are different from the positivist strands. Now, about science and research. Research is only one of the sub-areas of science. The others are Theory and Methodology. Methodology refers exclusively to the methods of theorizing, although in some sub-traditions it may contain also the methods of research. (Research retains field-oriented features and techniques.) (The delineation of Methodology as a sub-area might be controversial, it depends on the tradition.) The conceptual delineation of these areas might be different across different paradigms. In the Anglophone tradition, the most important thing in the world is to collect data. (Sometimes mindlessly, but never mind.) Theorizing is looked upon as simple speculation. This is actually the legacy of positivism in all its strands. In addition, the contemporary university institution in some countries degenerated research into a kindergarten play where undergraduates collect clippings and read their own textbooks to come to the conclusion that 2+2=5. (I know that in some branches of physics 2+2 is not equal to 4!). You can make science in a phenomenological way (e.g. Ethnomethodology), in a structuralist way (Levi Strauss), in a Marxist way, and so on. Verstehen Sociologie is not positivist, yet it is sociology as well, and Max Weber was making science as well. And last, about the "gut" feelings. You can be proud with your gut feelings, but the major difference between science (in the sense stated above) thinking and everyday thinking is that science goes beyond gut feelings. You may start with the gut feeling, but you should question it until you can find proof for it. Not vice-versa - question everything until you find something that might slightly support your gut feeling. Science emerged with that purpose - to eliminate the biases of the gut feelings. By reinstituting the gut feeling at the top of the pedestal we are not going to do something new - we just repeat the old. I do not reject the role of intuition in discovery, I just oppose the attempts to make a new science with gut feelings simply because we have not been trained to think in a scientific (in the sense mentioned above) way. I do not support positivists, I am just scared by the thought that there are people who want to make a living by changing science to play their own game. Regards, Lubomir Popov %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%