Hi all,
FYI, from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
ontology:
1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents
epistemology:
the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially
with reference to its limits and validity
Cheers.
Fil
Jan Coker wrote:
> I would think ontology comes closer to belief. So one ontology is the
> belief that what is is an objective reality.
> Jan
>
> Jan Coker
> C3-10 Underdale
> University of South Australia
> +61 8 8302 6919
> fax +61 8 8302 6239
> There is no way to Peace, Peace is the Way Gandhi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Filippo A. Salustri [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 6:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Ontology (was Design Methodologies)
>
> Jean et al,
>
> I've always worked with the following short (tho possibly naive)
> definitions:
>
> Epistemology: the study of what we know (and how we know it)
> ontology: the study of what is (as opposed to what we know of what is)
>
> Ontology, near as I can figure, assumes an objective reality of some
> sort;
> something that exists without us to know about it. Eg: sun would exist
> even if no one knew about it.
>
> So, if there's an ontology of design, it means that design can exist
> without anyone knowing that it is design. I'm not sure that's possible.
> (Remember that I distinguish between the meaning of 'design' and the
> label
> 'design'.)
>
> Dunno if that helps, tho.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> Jean Schneider wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Some comments triggered by Rosan Chow's post :
> > "if we look at the system (or structure) of inquiry in the social
> > sciences, there
> > are epistemology, theoretical perspectives, methodologies and
> > tools/techniques.
> > in Design Methdology, there seems to be missing the first two domains.
> > so i am
> > excited that john's design methodology is connected with evolutionary
> > systems
> > thinking. having said that, i feel that a philosophy of design needs to
> > go
> > beyond epistemology.
> >
> > as many of you have taught me, designing is making or making real. in
> > other
> > words designing, as Tony Fry has said, is in the domain of ontology.
> > that means,
> > a philosophy of design is a philosophy of being. and to me, that is a
> > philosophy
> > of morals."
> >
> > I hope that I will not sound too strict, but...
> > In my understanding, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that
> deals
> > with "science" in the rather narrow sense of the theories (and
> > associated methods) that aim at producing knowledge, and possibly
> truth.
> > In that sense, it is normal to have an epistemology of social sciences.
> > But I can't recall any serious claim from a designer saying that the
> > essential aim of design is to produce knowledge. Am I wrong ?
> >
> > I haven't read Fry's text that you are refering too, but I don't see
> the
> > necessity to call in ontology. It seems to me that we haven't even
> > explored much of the theoretical perspectives...
> > To constitute an ontology, the author (I am ready to accept many
> > ontologies, as long as they are consistent) should first of all declare
> > what constitute the reality. Is it things ? images ? use ? categories ?
> > technique ? economy ? representations ? etc.
> > The reason why I would be very sceptical about an "ontology of design"
> > (design as an activity ? or am I misinterpreting your post? and even
> > though : mental ? social ? praxis ? poietic ?...) is that you would
> > first have to declare how the "beings" are constituted. Whether it is
> > the result (but then : is the "object_ivity" of an artifact equivalent
> > to the "object_ivity" of an image ? etc...) or the process (and then :
> > isn't it then an ontology of language ? and how do the concepts then
> > frame the world ?) or...
> >
> > I think that we have already a lot to do with the last two domains,
> > which of course are partly informed about the existence(or rather : the
> > possibility of(the longing for ?) the existence) of the first two. But
> > if many of us might have a "philosophy of design", I would say that
> they
> > are philosophies as you say "s/he has a nice/bad philosophy of life".
> > Nothing that would be so serious.
> >
> > I am not even sure that there is a philosophy of architecture (the
> field
> > that I consider closest to ours, with the difference that it has enough
> > history to offer more insights), even though there are quite a few
> > theories of architecture (which are often very well informed by
> > philosophy).
> >
> > And I don't really grasp the connection between philosophy of design >
> > of being > of morals. But this could well be a problem of cultural
> > difference.
> >
> > After all, philosophy is the job of philosophers...
> >
> > Regards to all,
> >
> > Jean
> > Jean Schneider
>
> --
> 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/
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
