dear fil,
i agree with your observation:
Klaus is saying that things called theories do not include the theorists, so
we shouldn't use scientific theories in design.
Chuck, on the other hand, seems to throw a larger lasso around what is
covered by a "theory" - a lasso large enough to include the theorists'
intention. So the basic difference still seems, to me, to be where you two
put the boundaries around theory-ness.
you also say:
This leaves me struggling with statements of Klaus's like "i am not
advocating the use of scientific theory in design"
I struggle because I still see 'designing' and 'research on design' (as
opposed to research as a part of designing) as 2 different things. I would
agree with Klaus in that scientific theory really doesn't work in
*designing*.
However, I disagree with Klaus (and agree with Chuck?) if he means that
research on design(ing) cannot benefit from scientific theory.
my response:
to say that design could not benefit from scientific theory would deny many
technical developments, which have been informed by reference to theories
developed in science. often, scientific generalizations have allowed people
to apply a principle that worked in one empirical domain in another.
my claim that scientific theories do not explain design activity relies on
my using "theory" as in scientific discourse as representing what is
verifiable, ultimately by observations but without observer biases, and
generalizable to other similar but not yet observed phenomena. this assumes
that the nature of the phenomena being theorized are invariant under the
perspective of the theory in question. (other, notions of theory would lead
to different conclusions, of course. arguing without unambiguously defining
theory, in my opinion, is the source of the current muddle).
i see design, not as generalizing what was observed in the past, but as
creatively changing what existed into something that would not come about
naturally (e.g., by inaction). creativity is by my definition inherently
unpredictable. since design activity drives material culture, it is quite
understandable that adequate predictions (from theories created by detached
scientific observers) of specific technological/cultural developments have
largely been a failure. this is because designers do not generalize from
what is known but help to bring about what did not exist.
klaus
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> i think you are basically correct,
> phil,
> in your, what you call 2 cents (maybe you undervalue your contribution)
>
> i am not advocating the use of scientific theory in design. scientific
> theory, as stated, is neither action oriented (although it can benefit
> engineering) nor human-centered.
>
> chuck and ken insist that theories are human creations. this is trivially
> so, of course (although some scientists would confound theories with what
> underlies nature -- see the idea of "laws of nature"). what i try to
point
> out is that scientific theorists deliberately exclude references to
> themselves. a statement that "A causes B" has no place for who observes
> this "fact," who initiates A, which the theoretical proposition literally
> presupposes, etc.
>
> your mentioning "design theories" at least qualifies the notion of theory
> which chuck seeks to simply redefine. as i said, i would prefer "design
> strategy" instead of "design theory" for the above stated reasons. if
> intentions are meant to be the criteria for design strategy (or chuck's
> theory), i would expect them to state these with the possibility of
testing
> whether they can be realized by whom, where, under which circumstances and
> with which resources.
>
> klaus
>
> -----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 Filippo A. Salustri
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Philosophy of Design -- Short Response to Klaus
>
>
> It seems to me that the 'conflict' between Klaus's and Chuck's points of
> view have to do with whether the intention behind a theory should be
> part of the theory.
>
> My reading of what Klaus wrote suggests to me that he thinks (correct me
> if I'm wrong, Klaus) that a theory (of design) should include the
> intention and other aspects of the theorists.
>
> My reading of what Chuck wrote suggests to me that he thinks (correct me
> if I'm wrong, Chuck) that there is intention and other aspects of
> theorists that are in the context in which the theory was developed, but
> that the theory itself doesn't contain those aspects.
>
> In other words, Klaus and Chuck seem to be arguing about where to draw
> the boundaries that distinguish a theory from its context, but not
> necessarily about what a theory is.
>
> Just another 2 cents.
> Fil
>
> Charles Burnette wrote:
>
>>Klaus
>>
>>On 11/30/05 11:42 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>chuck,
>>>your proposal to define theory as
>>>
>>>"An effective theory is one whose purpose is
>>>clear, defines and relates its elements in ways that are relevant to the
>>>situations it addresses, communicates these situations clearly, supports
>
> the
>
>>>actions necessary to realize its purposes, provides evidence of its own
>>>effectiveness and generates useful knowledge."
>>>
>>>sounds nice. but you should be aware of the fact that
>>>(1) it associates many more requirements on the proper use of the word
>>>theory than demanded by the scientific notion of an empirically testable
>>>theory as defined in scientific texts and routinely tested in much of
>>>scientific research. -- you can do that, of course, but to make this
>
> notion
>
>>>practical, you also need to provide the additional criteria necessary for
>>>accepting such theories as valid.
>>
>>
>>What criteria do you have in mind? And why should a design theory, for
>>example, be judged on anything but an effective fulfillment of an
>
> intention?
>
>>I believe you are trying to apply your restricted view that a theory must
>
> be
>
>>concerned only with what scientists have agreed upon empirically - an idea
>>that flies in the face of what design can accomplish.
>>
>>
>>
>>>(2) your definition does not overcome my objection against propositional
>>>knowledge generally as inscribed in the grammatical form of stating
>
> theories
>
>>>by omitting the theoreticians' participation in what they theorize, e.g.,
>>>their intents (a concept you cherish so much), conceptions , and actions.
>
> i
>
>>>am afraid, your notion of theory is not human-centered either.
>>
>>
>>Such god like judgments don't become you Klaus. Give me a break! Intention
>>is human centered. So is the application of any propositional logic to a
>>given situation in an attempt to explain it. The logic doesn't arise full
>>bodied out of the situation.
>>
>>
>>>Warm regards,
>>>Chuck
>
>
> --
> 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/
--
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/
|
