While I'm a fan of Terry's definition, I'm also willing to entertain other
definitions, depending on the context.
I once successfully published a conference paper in which I inverted the
definitions of 'function' and 'behaviour' with respect to the convention in
the field, without having to change how I used the words; this happened
because at the outset of the paper I defined the 2 terms, and the reviewers
grudgingly accept it because they realized they were, in that particular
context, just labels for concepts about which I was writing.
So, in the context of determining the bounds of design, I think it really
does matter to define things carefully. In other contexts, various
'senses' of a word can be accepted so long as the particular senses are
made clear.
Just my 2 cents.
/fas
On 28 February 2013 17:53, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > If definitions are what I want the word to mean, then
> > different definitions of the same thing must compete. So, we
> > get into fights. It cannot be otherwise.
>
> You're right--no, there are not difference definitions of "the same
> thing"--but you are wrong--there are, indeed, difference definitions of
> what would appear to be the "same" word. The more commonly used a word is,
> the more definitions of various sorts will sprout.
>
> In the larger scheme of things, it doesn't matter much what any of us
> wants a word to mean or what any authority claims is the "right" definition
> of a word. That's not how words and meaning work. As to getting into
> fights, I suspect that it can be otherwise.
>
> > Definitions must be abandoned or fought for to the death.
> > It's often bloody.
>
> Damn. I've seen some stupid fights that were quite bloody and I really
> don't like picking up detached body parts and such so I hope this is
> hyperbole. If not, everyone should do everyone a favor and abandon some
> definitions because nobody--and especially nobody here--will control the
> "definition" of "design."
>
> We can use language precisely. We can even point specifically to that
> precision in a manner that others can grasp. This does not mean that
> language in general will be or even can be precise. One can start a book,
> and article, or a conversation by saying "When I use the word 'design' in
> this book (or article or conversation), I will mean xyz" but that doesn't
> mean anyone else has to abandon some other definition. It just means that
> the other definition isn't operative for that book, article, or
> conversation.
>
>
> Gunnar
>
> Gunnar Swanson
> East Carolina University
> graphic design program
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|