Dear Ken,
I feel you are mistaken. All aspects of theory I referred to in my previous
post were within Merriam Webster's Collegiate dictionary definitions of
theory.
Defns of 'theory' from Merriam Webster's Collegiate 11th edn :
'the analysis of a body of a set facts in relation to one another; abstract
thought :SPECULATION; general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a
science, or an art; a belief, policy or procedure followed as the basis for
action; an ideal or hypothetical body of facts, principles or circumstances;
plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or bodyt of
principles offered to explain certain phenomena; a hypothesis assumed for
the state of argument or investigation; an unproved assertion: CONJECTURE; a
body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject )~ of
equations).
However, I unrestrainedly apologise and withdraw my use of the term 'rant'
referring to your post. It was uncalled for, impolite and incorrect.
On 'illusions of self', I would be grateful if you would reread what I have
posted earlier. You are taking it personally unnecessarily, as are others. I
was suggesting it is now possible to see emerging sufficient evidence that
it makes more sense to regard our 'sense of self ' as an illusion and
'personhood' as located elsewhere. This applies to all of us. Put simply,
it implies assuming the location of our 'personhood' as more in our bodies
than our minds.
The evidence of this can be interpreted in different ways. For example,
Bruce Hood locates the 'self-illusion' in terms of an error due to the
processes of social identity formation
(http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Social/?view=usa&c
i=9780199897599) . Ramachadran, Damasio aand others have pointed to the way
that the sense of self is a constructed phenomenon rather than being the
central guide to our decisions and actions (see, e.g.
http://edge.org/conversation/self-awareness-the-last-frontier and
http://edge.org/conversation/the-neurology-of-self-awareness , for Damsio
the usual books plus his Ted talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio_the_quest_to_understand_consciousne
ss.html )) Also of interest is Dennett's work on the delusion of
consciousness (e.g.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html and on the
grand illusion http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/grandillusion.htm . Of
special interest is perhaps Lakoff, G. Steps Toward a Neurocognitive Self:
Conceptual System Research in the 21st Century And Its Role in Rethinking
What a Person Is. In The Science of the Mind; 2001 and Beyond., Massaro, Dom
and Robert Solso (eds). Oxford University Press, 1995, in which Lakoff
points to some of the expected reactions such appear to be occurring on
PhD-Design about the self illusion (see,
http://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/the-neurocognitive-self-lako
ff-1992.pdf for an early version).
On a more general note to clarify things, I'd like to point out that myself
and others often expect to work hard to understand other peoples' posts. If
someone refers to a particular application of Laplace transforms or
Feynmann's Taylor expansions, I expect to go look for it to understand it.
I don't expect someone to go find the material for me and describe it with
reference and page number. Similarly, to participate on this list, I expect
to have read a lot of material. When Constanza writes something about
Chilean design schools I expect to have to look for the stuff she finds.
Similarly when Eduardo points to the wisdom he finds at that bottomless
pit of exotic European history of design I expect to either have read it or
have to do the work to look. There are huge benefits though. For example
last year discovering that Vetruvius never wrote anything about Function -
and that it was an enormous fib propagated round design and architecture
schools!
The work of looking for the material is important for all of us. Mostly all
that is needed is a minimalist pointer (an author's name for instance) to
go investigate the material to gain more understanding and have a wander
round related material that emerges in the search - not a detailed reference
that points to a tiny section of text that may be nonsense outside its
context.
Doing the work of looking for things that are only partially specified seems
to be a good basis for learning and an important aspect of Phd-design. This
is different in other media. For example, the time constraints of journal
reviewing and the precision needed for expressing theory exactly mean
journals and conference papers need to specify references more accurately.
It's now the holidays.
Wishing you and your family (and the dog, if you still have him/her) all the
best for Xmas and the New Year,
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 Ken
Friedman
Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2012 10:00 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Testing design theory - Popper's three worlds (was 'design
theory testing')
Dear Terry,
You do not want to answer Tim's request to, "show us, with citations to
published work, how you have found Popper's Three Incommensurate Worlds view
to be useful in testing some theory of designing."
Neither have you been able to show us specific examples of "design theories
[that] arecontradicted by well-established theories in other disciplines."
Before my response, I'll restate the nature of a theory: A theory is an
explanation that shows the operation of a system with respect to all its
parts and the dynamic relation of those parts to one another. A theory is a
model, and a theory generally describes the working parts of a dynamic
system. This is what distinguishes theoretical propositions from simple
statements, catalogues, or taxonomies. A theory is a model of a full system
describing the dynamic relations of all parts of thesystem to all other
parts of the system.
The examples in your reply were not "design theories [that] are contradicted
by well-established theories in other disciplines."
The Gray and Malins book was filled with problematic claims and assertions,
but these were not theories. This was a textbook on design research. Gray
and Malins did not deal with design theory, and I don't recall that the book
presented any theoretical propositions.
Neither did my article on theory construction in Design Studies present
theories or theoretical propositions (Friedman 2003). This was an article on
theory construction describing the nature of theory.
Every article contains mistakes or propositions that could be said better.
The statements you critique are historical and contextual. I could have
stated those ideas better, and I probably should have. If one of the
referees had pointed to the issues at the time, I would have improved them.
Nevertheless, these are not theoretical propositions. You've proposed
historical and contextual improvements, not theoretical corrections or
contradictions. While you suggest reasonable improvements, these statements
are not theories and you don't contradict them with "well-established
theories in other disciplines."
On a small issue, you read one statement wrong. I wrote: "The qualitative
human sciences, along with thick description approaches to anthropology,
much history, and most literature resist quantization." The phrase "along
with" separates the terms on one side of the phrase from the terms on the
other. This statement does not elide "thick description approaches to
anthropology, much history, and most literature" with "the qualitative human
sciences," nor does it imply that any of these three represents the whole of
the qualitative human sciences. These are different to, and stand along
with, the qualitative human sciences.
At this point, I will offer a quick response to the whole of your post.
It is inaccurate to suggest that I asked you to do my work. When I state a
claim, it is my responsibility to provide evidence for my claim. In this
case, you stated the claim. I asked you for evidence to support your claims.
This is your work, not mine.
While you offered reasonable corrections and improvements to my article, you
did not provide examples of theoretical statements, and you did not offer
theoretical contradictions.
Tim asked you to "show us, with citations to published work, how you have
found Popper's Three Incommensurate Worlds view to be useful in testing some
theory of designing."
I asked for specific examples of "design theories [that] are contradicted by
well-established theories in other disciplines."
You declined to respond to Tim, and you did not point to theoretical
problems in my article or any other. These may exist, but you haven't
located them or described them - and that, as I see it, is your work, not
mine.
There is difference between theoretical propositions and propositions of
other kinds. I defined the nature of theory and theoretical propositions in
my posts in this thread, and in the paper and the article I noted (Friedman
2002, 2003).
In each of these debates, we reach a point at which you decline to support
your statements with evidence. You skip aside or say that evidence is not
needed while asserting the internal logic of the thread or implicit claims
to expertise.
You describe those with whom you disagree as subject to illusions and
mistaken while you believe yourself to be objective, logical, and apparently
correct.
You recently wrote that your "body has a relatively automatic response to
critically explore and remake theory models to fit evidence" while stating
that my "body's response was to be grumpy and criticize." When I offered a
robust debate your position, you claimed the debate was "a personal and
emotional critical attack." Now you say I'm guilty of a rant.
It seems to me that you appeal to evidence when it suits you, and it seems
that you claim there is no need for evidence when it doesn't suit you to
provide it.
You may be correct in these assertions, and I may be wrong.
Whether this is so or not, it doesn't seem possible to engage in a robust
debate on these issues. Since we have reached the point at which I am likely
to be labeled a grumpy body on a rant, the time has come for me to withdraw
from this thread.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask] |Phone +61 3 9214 6102 |
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
References
Friedman, Ken. 2002. "Theory Construction in Design Research. Criteria,
Approaches, and Methods." In Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design
Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September
5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton, Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK:
Staffordshire University Press, 388-414. Available at URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
Friedman, Ken. 2003. "Theory construction in design research: criteria:
approaches, and methods." Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507-522. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
