Dear Ken,

Thank you for your message.

 I feel you are making a meal of this, and from what, to me, seems an odd
perspective.

The generic approach I use for critically analysing any literature or
statement are the ordinary methods of classical philosophical analysis. At
the most basic these comprise conceptual analysis and analysis of the
propositional and predicate logic, along with checks for obvious fallacies,
all supported where necessary by précis to remove extraneous and rhetoric
elements and repetition. When the going gets tough and the concepts and
entities are muddied , a bit of ontological analysis is useful, and, for odd
tasks, I may stretch into using Foucault (e.g. archaeology), Popper
(separating theory types), Stegmuller (dynamics of theories), Indurkhya
(metaphor), and a bunch of others for special perspectives on addressing
particular aspects of reasoning.

You know all this from way back, you have commissioned me to use these
skills.

From the above perspective on conceptual analysis, the important and most
central thing about any writing is that its concepts and relationships are
logically related in a way that completely supports any claims made. The aim
is for the words to provide a complete logical support for what is proposed.
Best is if there is no need for citations and references. Only in cases of
weakness of argument or brevity does the author need to refer to or cite
other’s work. Weakness of argument when the author does not have their own
logical proof (or data) to hand or others have made the same finding prior
may result in the author having to refer to the work of others. Also, for
brevity, the author may wish to refer to or cite an analysis or proof
described elsewhere to save including it in detail.
The above is what I understand is a classic critical analytical approach. I
apply it both to writing my own work and critically analysing the work of
others.

Where there seems to be a gap between us in understanding is I expect the
reasoning necessary for providing proof of the authors’ argument to be
primarily in the words used, and only if that is not possible, do I expect
references and citations to be used. Better from my perspective is if
citations and references are not needed. In contrast, you seem to regard the
citations as the primary form of evidence. Please correct me if I am
mistaken about your position.

I feel concerned when citations are seen as the primary form of evidence of
validity of an argument. My concern is that the situation, and the mode of
analysis, starts to drift towards assessing the logical validity of argument
by the relative status of the author and via rhetoric. There are several
things you have written that seem to indicate you have a preference for this
status-based approach to proof (again please correct me if I’m mistaken). I
prefer to avoid proof by status or reification and instead take an
egalitarian view in which the document or discourse stands by itself without
reference to the status of the author, the citations, or the publishing
house or journal.

Design is a particularly hard area in which to make theory or even to write
about theoretically. It’s a conceptually rich and complicated arena in which
it is very easy to accidentally drift between different concepts and
meanings; use inappropriate logic, justification and evidence; assume proof
where there is none; and accidentally deliver fallacious arguments. On this
basis, analysing the design literature and making design theory are
activities for which careful critical conceptual analysis of the
philosophical sort seems, at least to me, to be particularly useful. This
preference appears to me to be more a matter of asking for more intense and
careful critical analysis of what is written rather than, as you wrote,
‘disputatious wrangling’.

With the above focus on critical conceptual analysis, the two issues that
seemed to be important to address in your previous questions on my use of
the terms ‘epistemologically valid theory’ and ‘a coherent and
epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design theory'
were about how I used the terms ‘epistemologically valid’ (particularly the
use of ‘epistemologically’) and ‘theoretical framework of design theory'.

Addressing these two issues to answer your questions seemed to me to be more
a matter of explanation rather than formal definition because both follow
naturally from the assumption that the primary tasks of the discourse and
literature was in explaining reasons for particular consequences (real or
theoretical). There is no particular ambiguity about my use of the term
‘validity’ - as you know it follows from the use of conceptual analysis via
propositional and predicate logic. The description of how I used the other
terms I feel was pretty completely described in my post and it doesn’t
require references or citations and didn’t require definitions. I’m open to
questions and comments about any aspects of it that you feel are fallacious
or under-justified. In fact, I’d be delighted.
Going through the list of complaints you appear to be making against me, you
are mistaken in your interpretation that things are valid if I agree with
them or unfounded if I don’t. That’s weird. From where I stand, the validity
of an argument or statement depends on the outcome of conceptual analysis of
the propositional and predicate logic of the sentences, paragraphs and
sections of a document. Anyone can do that analysis and different people
would be expected to get the same results. The conceptual reasoning and
argument of a document set down formally is analysed in logical terms
according to standard rules. Validity in that sense is independent of
personal subjective choice.

The goalposts remain the same place as they always were. I can understand
they may not be in the kind of places, or the kind of goalposts, you would
prefer. I don’t get to choose the kind of goalposts or their position
either.

The 8 criteria list you referred to was, as I explained off-list, something
I knocked up in five minutes as part of an explanation of something else.
Analyse it as you will, but I’d probably disagree with many parts of it if I
analysed it myself using the above methods.

A final thought, design theory and design research in its most recent
reincarnation is over 60 years old. In that time, apart from the technical
design disciplines, much of its really basic conceptual core remains a mess.
The discussions on this list illustrate it well. Much of discourse on the
role of sketching for example hasn’t moved forward. Definitions of many
basic concepts such as ‘design activity’ remain inadequate as a basis for
theory-making . This is the kind of situation that, to me at least, seems
due to lack of detailed conceptual work. My experience is there are
significant potential gains for theory development in design research from
the use of nit-picking conceptual analysis based on propositional and
predicate logical analysis and précis: not least sharpening the conceptual
thinking of all of us.

The work of Houkes and Vermaas I referred to earlier would seem to
demonstrate that kind of careful conceptual analysis that might raise design
research and design theory making out of what to me seems to be a mess
caused by using analytical and theory making tools that have been too crude
for the job. Have you read it yet?

Best wishes ,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--

-----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: Friday, 23 August 2013 3:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Epistemologically Valid Theory and Dynamic Modeling

Hi, Terry,

A while back, you sent me a list of 8 criteria for epistemologically valid
theoretical discourse as contrasted to writings you criticize as
atheoretical or lacking in epistemological validity. While I did not agree
with them, they were clear, concise, and they fit together in a coherent
framework. On Wednesday, I found your 8 criteria and sent them back to you
off-list. I was hoping for something like that – clear, concise, and
coherent.

Your latest reply on this topic was, instead, conversational and ambiguous.
Your reply was an example of opinion and rhetoric rather than the kind of
coherent framework typified by your 8 criteria. When you sent me the list of
8 criteria, you stated that this is the standard by which you judge and
criticize contributions on the issue of theory. This latest statement is
vague, and this new version of epistemological validity gives you room to
decide that theories are valid when you agree with them and unfounded when
you don’t. I’d be happy to post your 8 criteria to the list if you are
willing to let people see the difference between the standards against which
you judge others and the standards you put forward when your views are
judged.

Your responses to me, to Victor Margolin, and to Jerry Diethelm rest on
epistemological foundations that are no more solid than what you describe as
Victor’s “fallacies” or “Jerry’s opinion.” The difference is that you demand
that others produce more evidence for their opinions than you produce for
your opinions.

Your recent reply to me is an invitation to the disputatious wrangling that
Victor chose to avoid. This seems to me like a wise moment to withdraw from
this thread on design theory.

I’m ready to engage in a civilized and respectful conversation on design
theory. I’ve published my views in an article (Friedman 2003) and a slightly
longer conference paper (Friedman 2002). Both are available on my page at
Academia.edu. They are the first two papers on the page:

http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman

The decision to withdraw from the thread isn’t a decision to avoid
conversation or debate, and it's not a decision to avoid questions or a
challenge from someone with different views. It’s a decision to avoid
wrangling with someone who moves the goalposts depending on who has
possession of the ball.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------