Pretentious Twittery
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- Dr_Sparkleshine0
I mean it's one thing to say there are design principles based on certain mathematical formula, and how it all relates to established human behavioral perceptions, etc. and it's another to use those manufactured formula as the basis of identification in the "designers club".
It's just dogma.
Like science, the formula or theory isn't "science" and it isn't "creative" - it's shorthand. It's a handy reference and summaition of all prior work to date so you don't have to reinvent the wheel each time you go around basically. But to actually "do" science involves quite alot of creativity. But no scientist would ever make the argument that "formulas are science", because they're not.
Galileo didn't know jack shit about the now established Newtonian principles of physics, let alone Einstein's e=mc2..but the guy is arguably one of the most important scientists that ever lived. Imagined quizzing Galileo on the principles of Newtonian physics, having him fail and then say "Well, you're just 'creative', you're certainly not a scientist."
Total ass wankery. This attitude of this Rutledge fellow is all based on priggish dogma. Dogma should be utilitarian, useful and effective. It is the slide ruler of any profession. But held up as a standard of judging what defines base human experience of creativity is just absolute total bullshit.
Makes sense that he holds conservative political opinions, since they excel at bending common experience to dogmatic principles even when reality informs them otherwise.
- He's just testing people's knowledge of their trade, disconcerted with graduates he interviewsraf