Look, I am NOT trying to say that all of design needs to be science,
or to use the scientific method There are aspects of design that fall
outside of the range of things that science knows how to deal with.
Some which fall outside the range that science should deal with. The
scientific method is an extremely valuable tool, but it is but a tool.
Much of design is an art. Much of this includes those aspects that so
delight me about the creativity, excitement, and wonder of the work of
designers. I do not wish to lose that.
Science can be a wonderful way of advancing the state of knowledge, of
adding some rigor to what we do. But, and here I find it necessary to
repeat myself, this is not appropriate for everything.
So, to answer Birger (below) and others, I am NOT insisting that
science be appropriate for anything. I used the term "pre-science" to
indicate an aspect that I thought would some day be amenable to the
scientific method but where today's scientific understanding was not
sufficient to make that possible.
Action Research strikes me as particularly amenable to the scientific
method. I think it would help advance the field. But only for problems
that are amenable to it. That is, unique problems, ones highly
dependent upon the situation, the environment, and unique particulars,
will probably lie outside the realm because, as has already been
noted, it is very difficult to replicate or test ideas and principles
when each instantiation is in actuality a very different condition.
I still believe that situated action and similar concepts do have a
core set of issues that are attackable through science. Not everything
studied in AR and situated action, but some core principles.
But once again. It is my preference to use science. Not all aspects of
design can be studied this way: not all should be.
One of the strengths of the field of design is that there are many
views and many practices, each contributing to our sense of
understanding. Only some of these are based on science. That is the
strength of design.
OK?
Don
(Postscript. Unfortunately for his argument, Birger uses the example
of "chaos phenomena in complex systems" that might rest outside of the
boundaries of science. Well, my many scientific friends who study
chaos will find that amusing. Chaotic systems often appear unruly and
unlawful at the surface level, but deep inside there are fairly
straightforward simple structures at play, once quite amenable to
scientific test and to mathematical theories (that make testable
predictions). That is one of the powers of science: it can often find
reason and lawful behavior in the underlying structure of system that,
on the surface, look completely random.
So, I get your point, Birger, and I am not in disagreement. But you
need a better set of examples. For me, why not simply chose great
art? Or the wonderful look and feel that a great industrial designer
can impart. Why do I so love the Tinklewood lights I purchased from
Michael Riha, who at the time was a student at the School of the Art
Institute of Chicago? Or why do I like the Juicy Salif by Philippe
Starck? The fact that science cannot explain this doesn't bother me
one bit.
Don
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Birger Sevaldson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Don: Interresting but i think you play a little trick here. AR is conducted at many Universities and in research environments. Well... I think i will stick to pre-science from now on :) Would you consider AR to be acceptable for the larger domain of knowledge production, and maybe this is a better term than insisting on the term science? If accepting the terminology, and since you use the term pre-science, do you think that all knowledge production eventually will become science or do you think that certain types of knowledge production will rest outside of your boundary of science because of principle issues like the problem of the unique, chaos phenomena in complex systems or high rate of change?
|