My man. As always, I’m glad to hear your deep insights (and use them to press my own understanding). I will say, I need your help understanding what you mean.
I remember when I received the declination and critiques from the publication; I remember thinking how their critiques seemed…empty. When they offered methodologies for reliability testing, their insights wasn’t even trying to match the outcomes we found from the research.
However, as a fledgling scientist (that I admittedly still am), I strove to debate their critiques — in their own language. They didn’t aim to understand why we used Google Scholar; or they didn’t care for our search terms, or the like.
Though I don’t quite understand your high empathy/low empathy point, it took this process to realize that those languages didn’t work here. Design wasn’t concrete like biophysics or architecture, and I’d argue it would never become fully concrete: a field based on the novel might constantly itself evolve.
It’s why I want to understand, from you, why the ‘nonlinear’ nature of design doesn’t map to reliability. What do you think? Is this Conway’s law manifest on a disciplinary scale?