Charles, Klaus, et al,
It looks like there might be some confusion about whether a theory of
design regards the activity (cognition + behaviours) or the artefact. I've
become accustomed in engineering to use 'design process/cognition theory'
for the former and 'artefact theory' theory for the latter. Obviously,
theories of one and of the other would interrelate/interact, but they would
also be so broad that there is room to specialise in only one or the other.
Perhaps we should start distinguishing between designs and the processes
(mental and otherwise) that bring them into being?
Cheers.
Fil
Charles Burnette wrote:
> Klaus
>
> Thanks for the explanation -and maybe I do have
> trouble dealing with the way you put things.
> (Incidently,"talking loosely" -your words -and "loose
> talk" -my words- carry the same meaning for me. I
> think I already understood the statistical validation
> issue. My point had to do with the nature of the
> evidence in the sample being validated. Designing
> can't be validated directly through what it produces
> because every design worthy of the name is a uniquely
> situated response, determined by many variables. What
> a theory of designing must be about is how to
> generalize a process - purposeful thought and behavior
> across different instances of application. It is about
> capturing the redundancy in multiple experiences of
> designing. How redundancy is captured is determined by
> how evidence of it is defined and recognized. This
> definition determines the evidence to be validated.
> Then statistical validation of the evidence can come
> into play. The usefulness of the focal definition of
> the design process is a primary criterion for a theory
> of designing and also becomes a dimension of its
> validity.
>
> If this makes design theory different than your
> definition of standard scientific theory, then that is
> OK as far as I am concerned.
>
> Best,
>
> Chuck
>
> Dr. Charles Burnette
> 234 South Third Street
> Philadelphia, PA 19106
> Tel: +215 629 1387
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: klaus krippendorff
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 12:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception,
> sensory-motor etc
>
>
> dear chuck,
> you said:
> Good theory, in my view is plain talk about something,
>
> i said:
> yes, this is what i thought you meant when i suggested
> that for you, theory
> is the everyday use of propositions ABOUT something,
> plain talk as you say.
>
> you replied:
> It is truly condescending and off the point to suggest
> that I am arguing for
> or engaging in loose talk.
>
> don't be so edgy. i just read carefully what you
> said. i didn't use the
> phrase "loose talk", you did. nothing condescending
> on my part. all i
> wanted to say is that there are established concepts
> of theory (from which
> you may deviate, of course, at your leisure. it would
> be good though to
> make clear where and why you deviate from established
> use).
>
> you asked:
> What are the significance tests you refer to?
>
> well, i hate to appear evasive when i refer you text
> books on statistical
> testing. but believe me, there is so much written
> about it and theory
> testing is so highly developed that it would take too
> much of everyone's
> time, including mine, to give you all the details
> needed to fully understand
> how the significance of a theory is established.
> nevertheless, let me try
> to explain its overall meaning. a significance test
> establishes the
> probability of a theory to be born out by the sample
> of data at hand. most
> sciences accept a theory when the chance of accepting
> it while it is false
> is below 5% (some take as criterion 2%, some 1%,
> depending on how much is at
> stake). if the sample size is very small, the chance
> of accepting a theory
> is lower (regardless of the nature of the data) than
> when the sample size is
> large. when all possible cases have been analyzed or
> the sample size is
> infinite, then significance is not an issue and
> whether a theory is accepted
> depends only on the number of observations that speak
> for or against the
> theory. incidentally, the common use of significance
> tests is another
> evidence for what i said earlier, that theories are
> meant to be general, not
> explanations of the data at hand but speaking about a
> population of data
> larger than the sample being used for testing.
>
> you say to me:
> Your notion of generalizability appears to assume a
> truly omniscient view
> that fails to specify the domain of application that
> determines whether a
> theory is useful or not.
>
> of course, a theory is always about something (and so
> are ordinary
> propositions). and any theory states its conditions
> of application. the
> theory of gravity has to do with how material bodies
> attract each other. it
> says nothing (to my knowledge) about thermodynamics or
> about how a brain
> works. there are claims in physics to have found a
> theory of everything,
> but these are abstract and general to the point of
> being understandable only
> by a few experts (or believers).
>
> when you enter "usefulness" as a criterion for a
> theory, i think you mix up
> theories and instructions or imperatives. a theory is
> true or false and is
> accepted according to the probability of being true.
> instructions are
> useful. if you tell a child "look left and then right
> before crossing a
> street (in england and australia you may want to look
> in a different order)"
> this is an instruction that is useful in reducing the
> probability of
> accidents. it is not a theory. you might test the
> theory that pedestrians
> who look left before looking right have a lower chance
> to be run over by a
> car, which is again true or false. usefulness is not
> part of theory
> testing. again, you can redefine theory in your own
> terms, but then you may
> want to say how and why you deviate from the volume of
> literature on testing
> available and used by many.
>
> frankly, i do not know why this is so important to
> design. design engaging
> the world. designers are not detached observers or
> theorists, they innovate
> and improve the world of others. this cannot be
> theory governed. it has
> something to do with ethics.
>
> klaus
>
> klaus krippendorff
> gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics,
> language, and culture
> the annenberg school for communication
> university of pennsylvania
> 3620 walnut street
> philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
> phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
> fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
> usa
Cheers.
Fil
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
