instead of relying on definitions that entail the danger of claiming a
universalist meaning, falling into the trap of aristotles' taxomomies, and
being insensitive to specific contexts, i suggest to look at practices,
including linguistic practices, i.e. discourse.  when you analyze what
scientists actually do, the kind of reality they accept or reject, the kind
of explanations they prefer or reject off hand, then you may come to a
picture that is more interesting than asking what science IS.  my paper to
the conference will deal with these paradigmatic differences.  i could
attach it if it would be useful.  i can't reproduce all my arguments
although sid's insightful post certainly deserves that attention.

klaus

At 11:12 PM 5/22/00 +0200, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Sid Newton's post on "Design Inquiry versus Scientific Inquiry" raises an
>important series of questions. Many of them can be clarified through
>attention to definitions. I'm going to offer some definitions in the hope
>of clearing these up. The post also raises different questions that I won't
>attempt to answer.
>
>Attention to definitions and a clear understanding of what the word
>"science" means will immediately render several issues embedded in Sid's
>post clear.
>
>This past week, I've been in Milan at the Design (plus) Research
>conference. It was a marvelous meeting. The papers are all published in
>excellent proceedings, and I'd recommend it to anyone concerned with design
>research in general. (Query the conference organizer, Dr. Silvia Pizzocaro,
><[log in to unmask]>.)
>
>One of the issues that came up frequently was the question of the ways in
>which design may or may not be a science, and the ways in which design
>research might or might not be a form or scientific research.
>
>What was equally visible was the fact that different people, depending on
>their backgrounds, and even more on their cultures use the word science in
>different ways.
>
>What is science? At its heart, science simply involves a systematic way of
>knowing things. There are many kinds of science. Natural science as a
>general domain of science is only one of the many domains. Other domains
>include social science, engineering, even the liberal arts and humanities.
>One may also speak of the science of history, the science of theology and
>the science of literature. Some of these areas of science involve important
>distinctions. The science of literature, for example, involves organizing
>knowledge about literature, where creating literature is a practice or an
>art. The science of theology involves the disciplines of theology, while
>worship or pastoral care are practices.
>
>The 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (ARTFL: 1287)
>defines science in nearly all of its meanings:
>
>"Science, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p.pr. of scire to
>know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.] 1. Knowledge; knowledge of
>principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts. 'If we conceive God's
>science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the
>world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his science or sight from all
>eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass.' Hammond.
>'Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental philosophy.' Coleridge.
>2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and
>formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the
>operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,
>life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical
>knowledge. 'All this new science that men lere [teach].' Chaucer. 'Science
>is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the
>character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of
>real truth.' Sir W. Hamilton. 3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates
>to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and
>forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; --
>called also natural science, and physical science. 'Voltaire hardly left a
>single corner of the field entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history,
>philosophy.' J. Morley. 4. Any branch or departament of systematized
>knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of
>study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind. 'The
>ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar, rhetoric, logic,
>arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy; -- the first three being
>included in the Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium. Good sense,
>which only is the gift of Heaven, and though no science, fairly worth the
>seven.' Pope. 5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of
>knowledge of laws and principles. 'His science, coolness, and great
>strength.' G. A. Lawrence. . . . Science is applied or pure. Applied
>science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained,
>accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws. Pure
>science is the knowledge of these powers, causes, or laws, considered
>apart, or as pure from all applications. Both these terms have a similar
>and special signification when applied to the science of quantity; as, the
>applied and pure mathematics. Exact science is knowledge so systematized
>that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation,
>etc., are possible. The mathematical and physical sciences are called the
>exact sciences. Comparative sciences, Inductive sciences. See under
>Comparative, and Inductive. Syn. -- Literature; art; knowledge. -- Science,
>Literature, Art. Science is literally knowledge, but more usually denotes a
>systematic and orderly arrangement of knowledge. In a more distinctive
>sense, science embraces those branches of knowledge of which the
>subject-matter is either ultimate principles, or facts as explained by
>principles or laws thus arranged in natural order. The term literature
>sometimes denotes all compositions not embraced under science, but usually
>confined to the belles-lettres. [See Literature.] 'Art is that which
>depends on practice and skill in performance. In science, scimus ut
>sciamus; in art, scimus ut producamus. And, therefore, science and art may
>be said to be investigations of truth; but one, science, inquires for the
>sake of knowledge; the other, art, for the sake of production; and hence
>science is more concerned with the higher truths, art with the lower; and
>science never is engaged, as art is, in productive application. And the
>most perfect state of science, therefore, will be the most high and
>accurate inquiry; the perfection of art will be the most apt and efficient
>system of rules; art always throwing itself into the form of rules.'
>Karslake. Science (Page: 1287) Science, v. t. To cause to become versed in
>science; to make skilled; to instruct. [R.] Francis." (ARTFL Webster's
>1913: 761)
>
>The more recent Webster's defines science in shorter scope, but the
>meanings are the same:
>
>"Def science noun Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Etymology: Middle English, from
>Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge,
>from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati
>he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED Date: 14th century 1 :
>the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or
>misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object
>of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique)
>that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to
>a science> 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths
>or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
>scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge
>concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a
>system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary
>science> 5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE." (Britannica Webster's 1999:
>unpaged)
>
>This is comparable with Webster's (1990) and Webster's (1993).
>
>Wordsmyth (1999: unpaged) gives a broad definition of science, and offers
>specific examples of several sciences:
>
>"Def science Part of speech: noun Syllables: sci-ence Pronunciation: sai
>Ens Definition: 1. systematic observation and testing of natural phenomena
>in a search for general laws and conclusive evidence. Synonyms: physical
>science, natural science Definition: 2. a particular branch of this
>activity, such as physics or biology. Definition: 3. any disciplined,
>systematized area of study . . ."
>
>While Cambridge (1999: unpaged) emphasizes the natural sciences, it also
>allows the larger definitions. Cambridge (1999: unpaged) also points to the
>disputes concerning the interpretation of scientific method and the claims
>to unique validity made by some (but hardly all) scientists.
>
>Scientific method is different for different sciences. In some cases, what
>would be termed scientific method for a discipline known as a science would
>simply be labeled scholarship when the same discipline is elsewhere termed
>a study, a field, a discipline, or a form of scholarly inquiry.
>
>In Milan, Nigel Cross (2000) distinguished among several concepts that
>relate design to science. These include scientific design, design science
>and science of design. He also noted that Schon's approach to design
>rejected what he saw as the positivist paradigm implicit in Herbert Simon's
>approach to design science in favor of a constructivist approach (Cross
>2000: 45).
>
>In contrast to Simon's approach, one might well consider Fuller's approach
>to design science. Fuller (1964, 1965, 1969, 1971, 1981) offers an account
>of design science that is hardly positivist. While some forms of research
>connected to design yield to positive, experimental science (f.ex.
>materials science, load testing, etc.), much of Fuller's approach was
>profoundly poetic.
>
>It is also worth noting that neither Schon nor Argyris (Schon 1983, 1990;
>Argyris 1993; Argyris, Putnam and Smith 1985; Argyris and Schon 1992, 1995)
>oppose science. Both are social scientists. What they oppose is a narrow
>positivism unsuited to systematic inquiry into human behavior.
>
>Sid, Terry Love, Bryan Byrn, Tony Dunne, and John Wood have addressed
>substantive issues that deserve thought and comment. I may return on these.
>For now, I will merely suggest that we ought to consider carefully how we
>define such terms as science or scholarship before stating a position for
>or against.
>
>-- Ken Friedman
>
>
>
>References
>
>ARTFL Webster's. 1913. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G & C.
>Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for American and
>French Research on the Treasury of the French Language). Chicago: Divisions
>of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL:
><http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html>. Date
>accessed: 1999 November 21.
>
>Argyris, Chris. 1993. Knowledge for Action
>
>Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam and Diana McLain Smith. 1985. Action Science.
>New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
>
>Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. 1992. Theory in Practice : Increasing
>Professional Effectiveness (Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series).
>New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
>
>Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. 1995. Organizational Learning. London:
>Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co.
>
>Britannica Webster's. 1999. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
>Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,
>Inc. URL: <http://search.eb.com/>. Date accessed: 1999 November 21.
>
>Cambridge. 1999. Cambridge dictionaries online. Cambridge, England:
>Cambridge University Press. URL:
><http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/>. Date accessed: 1999 November 21.
>
>Cross, Nigel. 2000. "Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus
>design science." In Design plus Research. Proceedings of the Politecnico di
>Milano conference. Silvia Pizzocaro, Amilton Arrudo, and Dijon De Moraes,
>editors. Milan: The Ph.D. Program in Industrial Design, Politecnico di
>Milano, 43-48.
>
>Fuller, Buckminster. 1964. World Design Science Decade 1965-1975. Phase I
>(1964) Document 2: The Design Initiative. Carbondale, Illinois: World
>Resource Inventory, Southern Illinois University.
>
>Fuller, Buckminster. 1965. World Design Science Decade 1965-1975. Phase I
>(1965) Document 3: Comprehensive Thinking. Carbondale, Illinois: World
>Resource Inventory, Southern Illinois University.
>
>Fuller, Buckminster. 1967. World Design Science Decade 1965-1975. Document
>5: Comprehensive Design Strategy. Carbondale, Illinois: World Resource
>Inventory, Southern Illinois University.
>
>Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or oblivion: the prospects for humanity.
>New York: Bantam Books.
>
>Fuller, R. Buckminster. 1981. Critical path. New York: St. Martin's Press.
>
>Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1990. Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary.
>Springfield, Massachusetts.
>
>Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth
>edition. Springfield, Massachusetts.
>
>Schon, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner : How Professionals
>Think in Action. New York:  Basic Books.
>
>Schon, Donald A. 1990. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. New York:
>Jossey-Bass Inc, Publishers.
>
>Wordsmyth. 1999. Wordsmyth. The educational dictionary. Wordsmyth
>collaboratory. Robert Parks, ed. ARTFL (Project for American and French
>Research on the Treasury of the French Language). Chicago: Divisions of the
>Humanities, University of Chicago. URL: <http://www.wordsmyth.net/>. Date
>accessed: 1999 November 21.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
>Department of Knowledge Management
>Norwegian School of Management
>
>+47 22.98.51.07 Direct line
>+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
>
>Home office:
>
>+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
>+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>


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