Adam,
You write (below),
' Thus abduction a vital part of *thought process* of sciences.'[my
emphasis]
I don't see anything in what you wrote that connects abduction to a 'thought
process' at most it is part of a procedural logic in what you wrote? This is
confirmed by the way you express it in terms of feedback loops. Human
thinking is different - see for example Damasio or (for intuition) Bastick.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI 

Senior Lecturer,  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 Adam
Parker
Sent: Friday, 1 April 2011 10:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in desgin [was: NASA,
Hasmat, etc.]

>
> 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'.
>

Rather, we should look to abduction as being a feedback loop (!!!) within
scientific practice, as envisaged by Peirce. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy @ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#dia more useful than
wiki here:

The most important extension Peirce made of his earliest views on what
> deduction, induction, and abduction involved was to integrate the three
> argument forms into his view of the systematic procedure for seeking truth
> that he called the "scientific method." As so integrated, deduction,
> induction, and abduction are not simply argument forms any more: they are
> three phases of the methodology of science, as Peirce conceived this
> methodology.... Scientific method begins with abduction or hypothesis:
> because of some perhaps surprising or puzzling phenomenon, a conjecture or
> hypothesis is made about what actually is going on. This hypothesis should
> be such as to explain the surprising phenomenon, such as to render the
> phenomenon more or less a matter of course if the hypothesis should be
true.
> Scientific method then proceeds to the stage of deduction: by means of
> necessary inferences, conclusions are drawn from the provisionally-adopted
> hypothesis about the obtaining of phenomena other than the surprising one
> that originally gave rise to the hypothesis. Conclusions are reached, that
> is to say, about other phenomena that must obtain if the hypothesis should
> actually be true. These other phenomena must be such that experimental
tests
> can be performed whose results tell us whether the further phenomena do
> obtain or do not obtain. Finally, scientific method proceeds to the stage
of
> induction: experiments are actually carried out in order to test the
> provisionally-adopted hypothesis by ascertaining whether the deduced
results
> do or do not obtain. At this point scientific method enters one or the
other
> of two "feedback loops." If the deduced consequences do obtain, then we
loop
> back to the deduction stage, deducing still further consequences of our
> hypothesis and experimentally testing for them again. But, if the deduced
> consequences do not obtain, then we loop back to the abduction stage and
> come up with some new hypothesis that explains both our original
surprising
> phenomenon and any new phenomena we have uncovered in the course of
testing
> our first, and now failed, hypothesis. Then we pass on to the deduction
> stage, as before. The entire procedure of hypothesis-testing, and not
merely
> that part of it that consists of arguing from sample to population, is
> called induction in Peirce's later philosophy.
>

Thus abduction a vital part of thought process of sciences. If you want to
systematise design this might be a profitable point to remember. It's the
hypothesis formation aspect of problem solving.

Gotta run, still in trimester 1 hellhole, but at least lurking again now...
Tails now trimmed to assist readers with obsolete mail clients...

Cheers
Adam

-- 
Adam Parker
Senior Lecturer, Games Design
Qantm College

Qantm College Melbourne Campus
235 Normanby Rd
South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia

+61 (0) 3 8632 3400   | Phone
+61 (0) 3 8632 3401   | Fax

www.sae.edu  | Web
www.qantm.com.au  | Web
www.saeshortcourses.com  | Web

SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F. SAE
Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973

This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with any
copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes saving,
printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and may result
in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you wish to
unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic messages
from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send an email
this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.