Chris et al,
With respect, I don't think a scientific theory explains "how" something
happens. It provides a predictive model of how things happens. That's
an entirely different matter. First of all, being a model, it isn't
necessarily 'true' in a literal way.
EG: "Superstrings" - a leading theory (in fact, family of theories) of
how the universe works - has nothing to do with "strings". It's just a
convenient way to think about it. All scientific theories are like
that; some are just more obviously grounded in our perceptions than
others. Another way of putting it is that one may claim a theory to be
"equivalent" to "the truth", it isn't necessarily "identical" to "the
truth".
Also, I think the real "usefulness" - the "so what?" - of a scientific
theory is its ability to *predict*. You know you have a good theory
when you can base predictions of events/phenomena/etc on it and those
predictions work out.
Intent only comes in when you ask "why do we want to predict?"
What I'm suggesting here is that the "why" comes after something else -
in the case of scientific theories, it comes after the "how". Put
another way, intentional theories require some kind of infrastructure.
Cheers.
Fil
Christopher Kueh wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Oliver mentioned earlier:
>
> 'The tricky part is: typical scientific theories are positivist,
> therefore exclude human intent and intervention as much as possible, but
> design is all about human intent and intervention. So theories are
> either not "scientific" in a classical sense, or useless for informing
> design.'
>
> Just wondering, how do we justify the 'usefulness' of a theory,
> especially those theories that are newly developed and introduced? I am
> asking this as a PhD researcher, who is near to finish develop a
> user-centred theory to wayfinding map design. This is the question, if
> not challenge, that I always receive from more experienced researchers
> ... 'So what?' 'Why should your theory be a way out for designers?'
>
> Additional to the 'scientific' and/or 'human intent' theories, I
> personally see that both are important in informing (interaction) design
> practice. The scientific/positivist approach explains 'how' people
> interact/react to things, while human intent and intervention approach
> explains 'why' people conduct such activities. Your thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris Kueh
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Block pop-up ads with MSN Toolbar. http://toolbar.msn.com.my/
--
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/
|