My message follows after the citation.

At 08:56 AM 10/12/2000 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>
>Sid,
>
>Isn't it the case, and there are several case studies to support that the
>analytical mind works in a different way to the creative 'design' oriented
one?
>(Bayliss?)
>
>Maybe the widely held assumption is not that far from the truth, in that the
>analytical bias overides the ability to correlate the activity of
designing with
>any real experience within that particular mindset.
>
>If a deaf person understands how a violin creates a sound - can they still
>really understand Vivaldi?
>
>Understanding how form evolves cannot take precedence over the originator's
>innate ability - but at the same time , it seems the same talent  pecludes
the
>faculty to analyse this act of creation. This goes to an earlier point -
can one
>mindset create and at the same time analyse effectively?
>
>Bi-lingualists tend to have slightly less control over each language, and
>tri-linguists less again (a personal observation in France). Is this the same
>case between a designer and an academic?
>
>Glenn


Now this is a good lead. 

Science is about discovering something that already exists (otherwise it
will not be science). Even interpretation is an attempt to discover by
attributing personally invented world to the creative intent of another
person. The object of science has to be discovered. You don't change
anything, and should not change anything in the world; you should discover
it the way it is. Otherwise, you create a new world and you discover your
new world that you have already manipulated. (That is a major issue of
consideration in all paradigms.) The essential feature of science in regard
to design is the convergence on one single thing, single "truth."  There is
only one single physical existence here and now. There are no multiple
existences in multiple worlds. (Let's keep sophisticated physics a way for
a little bit.)

Design is about invention. It is inventing many new existences, although
each one of them is singularly defined here and now. The most important
feature is that there is nothing to discover, there is nothing that already
exists; otherwise it will not be design. The object of design has to be
created. You can't find it in the real world; you have to make it yourself.
(Let's say we all know that nothing is created absolutely from scratch.)
And you have many feasible options, not just a single true one. The
important criterion is not truth, but function (even the esthetical appeal
is a function of the artifact!). The reason for the multiplicity is that no
one of the options satisfies perfectly the brief/needs. They all have
advantages and disadvantages, but in different ways, and will be evaluated
differently by different users. 

Now, we might have elements of design in science (the research design) and
we might have elements of research in product design (asking people whether
they like your new shoe design), but this does not change the main mode of
thinking and the modality of discovery/invention. Even in Hermeneutics,
where we practically create new realms to be attributed to someone, we are
not designers in the sense of "product design." Otherwise, we have to
invite all poets and writers, and not to forget the journalists and
politicians, in our community. (By the way, every guy that lies, creates!
Liars are great designers too. But are they product designers? And when you
talk about design, I translated it as product & architectural design)

What I am fighting for is to make people understand that making a reseat
design is not shoe design. The only way to treat these two activities as if
they are of one and the same category is to go on philosophical level and
discuss design on philosophical level. Than my arguments will be different.
Than I might say that everything is design. But as far as our discussion is
on the DRS list, which means a society of product designers, architects,
and the like, and the discussion is far from actual philosophy thinking, I
would oppose any attempt to tell me that research design (the making of the
research plan) and product design are all one and the same -- it is design,
we are designers, and we can do both of these with applause.

With kind regards,

Lubomir Popov





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%