post-reflection+closing down
it’s settled: presentation was held (think it went quite well), the mind “opens” for the final act, drawing upon the fresh memory of today – in two respects
for today: very nice ideas (first idea had an amazing design, very impressive – none of the others [including of course our group] comes near this innovate mode of design as well as presentation), the theory input was also nice [in particular the linking from our sessions with the stages in theory-u, very illustrative)
in total: regarding the whole seminar, the following aspects appears noteworthy:
- multi-disciplinarity alone does not lead to „greater“/better results – its about the social technique that is used; the used one, as marked in pre-reflection, turned out very nice (admittingly ;)
- my adjective to describe the whole seminar is “applied” –> the sociologist in me says “neat” (in particular the focus on observation, a sociologist core category), the philosopher “naja” (in particular because of a medium attention to arguments, a philosophical core category) – this means two things
#1: insights gained are very useful for business students that (a combination from stereotypes + observation) are hardly used to such thinking patterns; for philosophers who are used to concepts like emergence or creatio ex nihilo (in a non-theological but theological sense), there a (in comparison) fewer insights
#2: I do not fully agree with the label “philosophy of science” for the content. although the context is science, the (felt) notion of applied leads to another conclusion. as it was mentioned today, the whole project can be better labelled as applied knowledge technique (or, as the title of the phd-course rightly says: a form of “design thinking”). to put it on a fundamental epistemic level with Kant and the likes, that does not seem appropriate
so much for that – finally (+summary): it is really astonishing, how fast a knowledge transformation passes by!
g
for today: very nice ideas (first idea had an amazing design, very impressive – none of the others [including of course our group] comes near this innovate mode of design as well as presentation), the theory input was also nice [in particular the linking from our sessions with the stages in theory-u, very illustrative)
in total: regarding the whole seminar, the following aspects appears noteworthy:
- multi-disciplinarity alone does not lead to „greater“/better results – its about the social technique that is used; the used one, as marked in pre-reflection, turned out very nice (admittingly ;)
- my adjective to describe the whole seminar is “applied” –> the sociologist in me says “neat” (in particular the focus on observation, a sociologist core category), the philosopher “naja” (in particular because of a medium attention to arguments, a philosophical core category) – this means two things
#1: insights gained are very useful for business students that (a combination from stereotypes + observation) are hardly used to such thinking patterns; for philosophers who are used to concepts like emergence or creatio ex nihilo (in a non-theological but theological sense), there a (in comparison) fewer insights
#2: I do not fully agree with the label “philosophy of science” for the content. although the context is science, the (felt) notion of applied leads to another conclusion. as it was mentioned today, the whole project can be better labelled as applied knowledge technique (or, as the title of the phd-course rightly says: a form of “design thinking”). to put it on a fundamental epistemic level with Kant and the likes, that does not seem appropriate
so much for that – finally (+summary): it is really astonishing, how fast a knowledge transformation passes by!
g
knowledgesquare - 23. Mai, 21:58