Hi Fil,
Thanks for your comment
That’s' dealing with the issue only in terms of the logic of the properties
of a design solution. In fact there are already many good ways to do that.
Most references to 'abduction' that I see are in reference to the human
internal and social activities involved in creating a design for something.
For that, abduction needs to be able to closely integrate with feelings,
memory failings, decision making about internally held partial designs,
neurocognition issues related to feeling-based idea generation etc etc.
Simply stating 'hey that stuff is "abduction"' doesn't seem to lead very
far.
As far as I can see, the 'abduction' path seems to be a dead end in terms of
design research and improving design practice.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Senior Lecturer, Dept of Design
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Director, Design-based Research Unit, Design Out Crime Research Centre
Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----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: Friday, 1 April 2011 7:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in desgin [was: NASA,
Hasmat, etc.]
Terry,
Re: Pierce. That may be, but can't we let the concept grow beyond
it's originator's conception?
In logic, abduction is usually thought of as the converse of
deduction. This is most easily seen by considering modus ponens:
Given: P -> Q (where -> means "implies")
If P, then Q.
That's deduction.
The abductive version is:
Given: P -> Q
If Q, then P.
This doesn't mean that P and only P is true. It means that P is one
of many possibilities.
P->Q doesn't mean that we exclude R->Q, T->Q, or anything else.
What abduction gives you is all the things that follow (logically)
from something you know.
If Q (what we know) are the requirements, then all of the {P, R, T,
etc} are the things that follow from the requirements - the set of all
possible 'things' (artifacts, products, whatever) that satisfy the
requirements. Sounds like design.
Caveat: this is (a) a superficial description of (b) one variation of
abduction. A question of interest to me is which kind(s) of abduction
make for good models of (parts of) designing?
Cheers.
Fil
On 31 March 2011 19:03, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Fil, Andy and all,
> Peirce was perhaps the main original proponent and definer of abduction.
> His definition of 'abduction' was 'to guess' - nothing more complex.
> This suggests that the value of the concept of abduction is limited in
> design research unless one creates a whole lot more theory sophistication
> about the activity of 'making a guess'.
> In which case, using the term (and concept of) 'abduction' (with its
> limited meaning) isn't that helpful.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----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: Friday, 1 April 2011 3:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in desgin [was:
NASA,
> Hasmat, etc.]
>
> Andy et al,
>
> I agree with you:
>> The key difference between the natural sciences and design synthesis is
> the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning.
> Though I'm not sure if it's *the* key difference or just *a* key
difference.
>
> My question is: why do I find myself agreeing with both Derek and Andy?
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> On 31 March 2011 06:15, Andy Polaine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi folks, this is really a follow on of Derek's post that started with
> "Does anyone remember: NASA, 1980s, Hazmat,the future?"
>>
>> Derek wrote:
>>
>>> My observation has been less eloquent that yours. It's more Austin
Powers
> than Blake, namely, "They'll steal my mojo!"
>>>
>>> The funny thing about scientists is that they don't fear this. Yes,
> someone else might "get there" first, or worse, a competing theory may win
> out, and all that bother, but there isn't a sense of being redundant as
soon
> as one becomes proficient. In fact, I'm argue that serious scientists,
upon
> achieving a certain level of expertise, realize how rare indeed they are
in
> the world, and how much value they can offer.
>>>
>>> I hope designers get there too. I don't think all design practice should
> be elevated to theory, just as I'm not convinced that the art of writing
can
> be taught, whereas the craft indeed can be (I'm thinking of John Gardner
> here, who was divine at teaching this). But just as one can practice
writing
> or study it as literature, I see a future when design too may need to grow
> comfortable with its duality, just as the productiion of literature is
not,
> and need not be informed by, the theory of it. And so too can great
> historians and theorists exist on writing without even trying their hand
at
> the craft.
>>
>> As you and I have talked about before before, I think you're making
> assumptions about the way designers work and what they value here in the
> same way that you would accuse designers of making assumptions about the
> fields your working in and that design is wanted to tackle (social issues,
> development, etc.). I can understand why, because I think designers have
> themselves to blame in this regard – the analytical process of synthesis,
> moving from research data to insights to concept ideation, is poorly
> articulated and poorly documented by designers themselves. Yet it's
perhaps
> the most crucial part of design activity, more so than the artefacts –
> images, diagrams, objects, products – that are most often considered
> "design".
>>
>> Designers have also too often bought into the idea of "mojo," of talent
> and inspiration being their secret ingredient to what they do. It is, I
> believe, a reaction to the way the arts are positioned in school education
> versus the STEM - science, technology, engineering and maths - subjects. I
> don't really want to veer off into that area now, but the key point is
that
> buying into the talent myth not only re-charges the ego, but also gives
> designers something of worth that they feel they can sell. This is a
> terrible error on the part of design because it hides the very process
> (synthesis) that it should be making a point of explicitly stating. It
also
> devalues the experience and practice that goes into making a good
designer.
> (It's also why it is offensive to say a musician who practices 4 hours a
day
> is "lucky" to be so "talented").
>>
>> The key difference between the natural sciences and design synthesis is
> the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning. That's a
> comparison that one can intellectually grapple with and each side can
state,
> analyse and value (if they're open enough to it). Normally the
> science/design difference is stated as reason versus "mojo" – by both
> designers and non-designers. That's not and apples to apples comparison
and
> it's also one deeply damaging to design. Historians and archeologists, to
> mention just two areas with established methdologies, both use abductive
> reasoning to work with incomplete data and draw "best guess" conclusions.
In
> both cases these can also be prototyped and tested, which is what design
> does, of course.
>>
>> By failing to articulate this properly, the field of design has set up a
> false dichotomy between theory and practice (and practice and research)
that
> is less prevalent, if at all, in the natural sciences. A scientist in a
lab
> doing research is doing science and is using and developing theories.
Design
> education has generally failed to integrate these and so design practice
is
> seen as a different thing from design theory or research. This is a huge
> problem for students and educators, because the practice vs theory rift in
> institutions is quite prevalent and ultimately destructive.
>>
>> Practice is theory and research. At least it should be and most
practicing
> designers do do this even when they don't articulate and thus can't sell,
> explain or argue the case for it. That leaves it open to the accusations
> that you make, Derek. I'm going to quote your lecture on design and ethics
> back to you and others on the list, because (apart from the slightly
> patronising use of "grown up") it sums up the issue very well:
>>
>> "These [armed conflict, violence, peace, security and development] are
> real, grown up issues that need real, grown up attention by people who are
> committed — professionally – to trying to figure out what is wrong with
> their own ideas, and not what is right about them. Designers are
worryingly
> not involved in that process. Design is trying to prove itself, rather
than
> disprove itself. It is the latter, though, that will serve the social
good."
>>
>> As you point out, science tries to disprove itself all the time. That's
> what powers its advance and allows the rather odd combination of
> simultaneous competition, sharing and collaboration. I think design is
well
> placed to add a powerful set of insights and approaches to science's often
> too reductive nature, especially with regards to human interactions,
issues
> and needs. Analysing and designing solutions for these is what design has
a
> long history and deep understanding of. The problem isn't a lack of
ability
> or maturity, it's a lack of vocabulary (which, one might argue, maybe
comes
> with maturity).
>>
>> Design's adoption and engagement with methods and practices from areas
> such as sociology (specifically ethnography) and psychology – to name but
> two – is a positive step, not only because it makes for better design
> practice based on grounded, human-centred foundations, but also because
> those fields have more established and better articulated methodologies
> that can add to design's vocabulary.
>>
>> Refs:
>>
>> Here's the link to Derek's lecture for those who are interested:
> http://www.unidir.org/bdd/unidir-views-fiche.php?ref_uv=27
>>
>> Much of my thinking on synthesis has been inspired and influence by Jon
> Kolko's writing on the subject:
> http://www.jonkolko.com/writingAbductiveThinking.php and
> http://www.jonkolko.com/writingSensemaking.php and his recent book:
> http://www.methodsofsynthesis.com/
>>
>> p.s. Derek, I don't agree with the point about not doing a PhD in
creative
> writing, but that's another conversation that turns around the word "in."
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andy
>> –
>> Hochschule Luzern
>> Design & Kunst
>>
>> Sentimatt 1 | Dammstrasse, CH-6003 Luzern
>> T +41 41 228 54 64, F +41 41 228 56 99
>> M +49 151 1964 2581
>> Skype: apolaine
>> Twitter: apolaine
>> http://www.hslu.ch/design-kunst/
>>
>> Dr. Andy Polaine
>> Forschungsdozent Service Design
>> Research Fellow / Lecturer Service Design
>>
>> T direkt: +41 41 249 92 25
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Co-author: http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/service-design/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> 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://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
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://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|