Discussions:Design and Science
^
3
^
Dan Lockton 1/18/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Selection made on Version 11
Our best chance for rapid breakthroughs should come through a collaborative “One Science.” But instead, we seem unable to move beyond “many sciences”–a complex mosaic of so many different disciplines that often we don’t recognize when we are looking at the same problem because our language is so different and our microscopes are set so differently. unable to move beyond “many sciences”–a complex mosaic of so many different disciplines that often we don’t recognize when we are looking at the same problem because our language is so different and our microscopes are set so differently.
Our best chance for rapid breakthroughs should come through a collaborative “One Science.” But instead, we seem unable to move beyond “many sciences”–a complex mosaic of so many different disciplines that often we don’t recognize when we are looking at the same problem because our language is so different and our microscopes are set so differently.
Do you think much of the strength of this antidisciplinarity comes from this complex mosaic? i.e. the variety of being able to deal with the world in different ways, and the recognition that these are ways of knowing which each have their advantages at different scales and in different contexts? Making connections between the disciplines and ways of thinking, and understanding, shifting into and using each other’s perspectives can be adaptive, but trying to wrap them together too tightly might end up removing the very thing which makes the approach successful in the first place.
^
5
^
Joichi Ito 1/30/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
That’s an interesting and good point. I think we still need the disciplines and their rigor. I think language defines and helps us think, but it also limits us. I think that being able to move between the sciences as well as sometime “go meta” and move beyond the constraints of their languages is important too. Probably an AND not and OR.
^
3
^
Dan Lockton 1/31/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Thanks Joi. Yes, definitely AND. I think even having an organisation like the Media Lab that explicitly recognises the value of depth and breadth, and has an explicit aim of enabling “going meta”, is very valuable. There aren’t many places that do this, or are able to attract/support the right mix of people.