Chuck and list
Yes, I agree. My intent was not to suggest Mitcham's "four ways" as
something design should follow. What I do like about Mitcham's book
and his "four ways" is that he actually tries to take on the big
picture, to develop an overall framework. But, I also believe that
you are right in your criticism of his work. He is definitely not a
person with any kind of "wholistic" perspective, even though he
develops the idea of three approaches in the end of the book, where
he relates his thoughts to some larger historical traditions of
thought. Unfortunately this is the part of the book that is less
developed. Anyhow, Mitcham is in my opinion not someone who in some
radical and challenging way comes up with the overall philosophical
foundation we are (maybe) looking for in philosophy of design. His
book is, however, a very good, correct, detailed account of the
history of philosophy of technology. And I think we would benefit a
lot in our field if someone took on the challenge to do what Mitcham
has done, but in design. (We have of course the edited book by Cross
from 1984 (?))
( I still believe that philosophy of technology, as a field, is a
place where design thinking and design philosophy can find a lot of
value. It is one of few areas where the "designed" and "artificial"
aspects of our experienced reality is taken seriously.)
Erik
28 nov 2005 kl. 20.12 skrev Charles Burnette:
> On 11/25/05 8:46 PM, "Erik Stolterman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> For instance, Mitcham
>> divides the field into four ways of understanding technology, as
>> objects/artifacts, as knowledge, as activity/process, and as
>> volition. Maybe this way of dividing the field of philosophy of
>> technology is useful in the field of philosophy of design?
>
> Erik,
> Having read Mitcham's book and found it lacking, I would still like to
> support (and amend) his "four ways" which I deem inadeguate to
> support a
> philosophy of design. The support comes in the view that there are
> different
> aspects of design to be addressed within any philosophy regarding
> it. The
> inadequacy lies in his grasp of the whole. To me volition equates to
> intentionality, objects/artifacts are forms of expression, activity/
> process
> includes everything from methods and technigues to skill and
> performance,
> and knowledge only comes with reflection on experience. He has
> (generally
> speaking) missed the issues of definition/semantic identity,
> combinatorial
> possibilities and valuation in his grasp of the whole. Furthermore,
> he has
> not proposed a framework through which all aspects can be
> integrated, a
> requirement, in my view, for a significant philosophy of design. (For
> Rosan), I make the distinction that a design philosophy is a guide for
> applying a philosophy of design - Form Follows Function, being an
> example
> of a design philosophy expressed to guide designing. A philosophy
> of design
> should accommodate every design philosophy asnd every aspect of
> designing.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
|