Rewinding the list a bit ...
Fil: Yes, I agree, we might better keep the
wording of the medics working ethic: "First
do no harm." As you say, it's more inclusive.
And, Ken, your point about physicians having a
responsibility to know the nature of illnesses,
diseases, and infirmities, together with the
effects and outcomes of different treatments,
is, as you say, important. I would say, it
is _the_ issue: seen more clearly so, with
Fil's suggested recovery of the "First do no
harm" form. Practising this when designing
requires a great deal of many different kinds
of knowledge. It's not good enough to try not
to do harm; designers need to know that they
do no harm. This is the designer's
responsibility: ignorance is no defense.
Your proposal that Design Research should work
to identify, understand, categorise, organise,
all that designers need to know and practice,
is thus one I would happily join, especially
one that seeks to develop what's needed for
an evidence-based practice of designing.
As I understand him, this would go, at least
some way, towards addressing the concern that
David Sless writes of: the real stuff of all
designing.
Best regards,
Tim
Donostia / San Sebastián
The Basque County
==============================================
At 18:27 -0400 7/4/07, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:
>Tim et al,
>
>I agree that borrowing the key-phrase of
>medicine is a good idea, but why substitute
>'unhappiness' for 'harm'?
>
>Surely, we can include 'unhappiness' within
>'harm', and I think 'harm' (in a general sense)
>helps things remain more inclusive. I'm
>thinking of engineering designers here, who have
>an obligation to uphold the 'public good'. I
>see this as synonymous with doing no harm. And
>I'd like to see this kind of language be as
>inclusive of all manner of designers as possible.
>
>Cheers.
>Fil
>
|