Jim of the Humlab summarizes a lecture given by Erik Stolterman on "philosophical aspects of collaborative intuitive design." I generally dislike criticizing, preferring to synthesize what I find useful in others' work. And I wasn't there, so perhaps conversing face-to-face with Jim or Erik would add the context and nuance that I do not see in this summary. However, from what I do see, much of this "philosophizing" is merely oversimplification to the point of being almost useless. He gives, for example, a table contrasting design and science tools in terms of dichotomies, such as meaning-value, judgment-logic, competence-knowledge, and others. These dichotomies rely upon idealized (and false) representations of design and science. And it's difficult to know how to respond to someone who says, "The ability to make judgments distinguishes a designer from a researcher and distinguishes a good designer." Researchers don't design their experiments? They don't use judgment based upon past experience? Also, Jim records, "judgment is knowing based on knowledge that is inseparable from the knower." Is there any knowledge that is separable from the knower?

Still, this summary is instructive. Being specialists in the currency of knowledge, we can't be aware of, much less know, all the manifold disciplines that touch upon our interests, so we're likely to be "wrong" much of the time.