> If you have a theory, in the scientific sense, it leads to predictions.
This assertion has been troubling me for a long while, and since you
did bring it up... :)
Is it possible to have non-predictive scientific theories?
Based on my (very little) reading of Popper, he would definitely say
"no", since science is distinguished by its focus on testability. How
would you test something that doesn't predict? However I'll bet that
Popper isn't the be-all-and-end-all, so there might be other
definitions of science that do support the possibility.
Where this relates to design, in my sphere anyways, is that I'm being
asked to develop a scientifically valid measure of engineering design
ability. As I understand measurement, to design a good measure
requires an underlying theory of the thing being measured. Thus I need
a scientific theory of engineering design. This would imply that I can
make predictions about design, which I don't think is feasible.
Then we throw stochastics, fuzzyness, etc., into the mix and I just get
more and more confused.
Si to haul this rant (sorry to all) back to the original question: is
it possible to have non-predictive scientific theories? If it isn't,
then can we have a "science of design"?
Jason Foster
|