mike,
If you were to rigidly comply with dictionary definitions, you would produce only (grammatical) combinations of stereotypes.
i prefer my own deliberate use of words and am happy to explain it. i cannot know whether what i write resonates with other readers -- unless i engage with them in conversations. this is what a discussion group like this can facilitate. apparently you pursue a concept of design that you do not find in my post.
more to your point: a plan (design) produces nothing by itself. it doesn't predict anything. to have an effect, it must be taken up by someone interested and willing to do something with it, something that could not become real without that actor. in the natural sciences, predictions exclude the interest of observers (theoreticians, claimants of the validity of their predictions). a science for design must acknowledge stakeholders as the key to realize something that cannot be predicted without actively working toward its realization.
if ipads could grow on trees, can be found in nature, and hence predicted from known regularities, we wouldn't need designers (by my definition).
unlike what you suggest, i would construe my post as "designed" in that it intends to shift the conversation -- whatever you read into it.
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 Paul Mike Zender
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: types of design research
Klaus,
My beginning point in the following argument is acceptance of standard dictionary definitions of the words used.
Your argument, though interesting, describes a non-design activity in that the results, if random outcomes can properly be called results, are unpredictable. Design as a plan to produce something - material or immaterial. Design is considered effective the something produced reflects the plan - the design is considered to have failed when the result is other than planned. To modify the purpose as you propose redefines design and such a redefinition, though interesting, is a new definition of a new thing: it's not design. You can make (design) a word to mean anything you want (random) but the new thing is not the original thing.
Nor were I suppose your written words expected to have a random result, they were designed to communicate your point. And they did. And I take issue.
Mike
|