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


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:02 PM
To: klaus krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception, sensory-motor etc


Klaus ,

It is truly condescending and off the point to suggest
that I am arguing for or engaging in loose talk. What
are the significance tests you refer to? What is the
basis of the validity they determine? Does it depend
on physical confirmations, on descriptions of the
things it addresses, or on evidence of usefulness? A
theory must articulate what it is about. 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. Your focus on determinism makes every theory
into an explanation. In my view theory, is a well
reasoned hypothesis that asks for information
indicating its boundaries and usefulness.

Chuck


Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and
related research in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of klaus krippendorff
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 1:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theories of design cognition, perception,
sensory-motor etc


chuck,
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.
in the sciences theory has a more specific meaning.
there are so-called
significance tests to establish the probability that a
theory is valid,
i.e., generalizable to data outside the sample you
happen to be
investigating.  such tests are absent when you talk
loosely.
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


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask] AC. UK; klaus krippendorff
Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception,
sensory-motor etc


Klaus,
It is the issue of how determinism is established that
separates us, I think. My view is that those
conditions are based on intention and context which
are the conditions set when applying a theory. They
can embrace strategies, varying behaviors, and the
consequences of their application. This is purposeful
and goal seeking but not predetermined. Good theory,
in my view is plain talk about something, that is
generalizable in all but application, descriptive and
operational regarding the situations to which it
applies.

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: Friday, May 21, 2004 1:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception,
sensory-motor etc


chuck,
your notion of theory is not the standard concept of
theory as used in the
sciences.  indeed, in order to generalize, the objects
that you do
generalize have to have something in common, a
continuity, a determinism.
ultimately theories require determinism which is
antithetical to design.
from what you say about theory, i do not see a
difference between theory and
plain talk ABOUT something.
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


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:04 PM
To: klaus krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception,

sensory-motor etc



Dear Klaus:

My model of a good theory is one whose purpose is
clear, that defines and relates its elements in ways
that are relevant to the situations it addresses, that
communicates these situations clearly, supports the
actions necessary to realize its purposes, provides
evidence of its own effectiveness and generates useful
knowledge. I suspect that your good "standard"
scientific theory fits this model. I would appreciate
a copy of your paper on the role of theory in the
social sciences, as I always learn something from how
you view the world.

As for the different approaches to language, you
apparently did not receive my off-line response adding
three more theories of language to your chart.
(Evidence, I hope that I do not recognize a single
theory of language.)  I surmised, perhaps erroneously,
that yours was a social constructivist view of
language based on your chart heading "socially
constitutive" "constructive" which I interpreted as
your favored view of language, statements like "there
is another feature of objectification and that is to
deny the constructedness of phenomena in question."
and your strong feeling for "languaging" as a social
consensus seeking activity. I'm sorry if I
misunderstood you.

I disagree with at least part of your statement that
theory "to be generalizable, there has to be an
underlying continuity, a mechanism that is
determinate, a recurrent pattern, and at least
stochastic invariance. Without that theories have
nothing to say." If you follow my model of a good
theory, it need not be determinate in the sense that I
think you mean it, and the "stochastic invariance" can
reach goals that vary with the intent and the
situation. I suggest there is a generalizable and
recurrent pattern to designing, that its application,
context and behavior varies and it is not necessarily
linear and predictable (i.e. deterministic.) In my
view designing is responsive to theory as is all human
thought and behavior.

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: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and
related research in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of klaus krippendorff
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theories of design cognition, perception,
sensory-motor etc


dear chuck,
i had responded to terry's question regarding theory.
you may have
overlooked my response and i am adding it here.
i suspect, you have a definition of theory in mind
that differs from my more
standard scientific one.  i published a long critical
article on the role of
theory in the social sciences (not on design, though).
i could send it to
you if you care to read it.  but then i had also sent
you the comparison of
different approaches to language, and i wonder why you
are still settled on
only one.
you are asking how i could support a theory of social
constructionism while
arguing that design cannot (i'd prefer should not) be
governed by theory.  i
never said that i support a theory of constructionism
and wonder where this
idea comes from.
klaus

here is my response to terry:

dear terry,

to answer your question, first what is a theory?

a theory is constructed by a detached observer, as the
greek origin
suggests, by a spectator who is outside the events
described.  designers by
contrast do things.  the knowledge that designers need
must come from and be
applied to insiders of the design process,

a theory is always a generalization.  the validity of
a theory depends on
whether it accounts for the events it claims to
generalize, that is to
events that are not yet observed.  prediction is one
criteria.  a theory
that does not generalize to anything else is sometimes
referred to as an
explanation.  explanations may make sense but if they
do not do more than
that, one cannot say anything about their validity.

to be generalizable, there has to be an underlying
continuity, a mechanism
that is determinate, a recurrent pattern, an at least
stochastic invariance.
without that theories have nothing to say.

i maintain that design is an inherently unpredictable
activity.  it is an
undisciplined discipline, as i once said.  if
designers would do what is
predictable, they would not be designers but
unimaginative replicators of
what their job requires.  if design is inherently
geared to the novel design
theory is either invalid or predictive of features
that are not essential to
design.

this is why i think it is futile or does a disservice
to design to theorize
it.  the inability to theorize design is far from
rendering design magical.
one can teach it, one can reproduce it in various
situations, one can earn a
living with it suggesting it is useful to someone, but
what it takes is an
embodied knowledge, one that must be practiced to be
demonstrably valid (not
validated by further observations).

klaus


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:23 PM
To: klaus krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception,
sensory-motor etc


Klaus:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by your statement:
"precautions should map behavioral theories into the
design process, which by itself, cannot be theory
governed" The last part seems particularly
problematic. i.e. how can you support a theory of
social constructionism while holding the view that
design cannot be theory governed? Your theory, in my
view is a product of design.

Best regards,

Chuck