Hi, Terry,

Since you mention my concerns, I will clarify them. My concerns have to do with your style of argument. Your wrangling argumentative style leads to problematic outcomes rather than sound conclusions.

In an earlier post, Jerry used the word “indeterminate.” When you asked Jerry to clarify, Jerry made his meaning clear. In his answer, he changed the word “indeterminate,” to “unpredictable.”

Merriam-Webster’s at Britannica Online gives the first meaning of the word “indeterminate” as “a: not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : VAGUE<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=vague> b:  not known in advance  c:  not leading to a definite end or result.” The second meaning is “having an infinite number of solutions.”

Jerry wrote that people “respond unpredictably in the ways that they interpret and make use of (afford) human artifacts.”

Jerry did not commit the “infinity error.” The assumption of infinite options is your idea, not Jerry’s. Jerry’s concept involves the lack of predictability that can arise from multiple perspectives, shifting horizons, and changing context. Jerry explained the issues in his latest post and I agree with him.

My concerns involve your wrangling. Merriam-Webster’s defines the verb wrangle as, “to dispute angrily or peevishly: BICKER<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=bicker> 2: to engage in argument or controversy.” To argue about the “infinity error” after Jerry stated that he meant unpredictably is wrangling.

So is the peevish way you’ve built the evolving arguments in this thread, bickering about theory with Victor, Jerry, and with me.

Everyone sketches concepts. You do something different. You do not state your concepts in the body of your argument as postulates from which you will argue by reasoning. If you were to do that, reasoning would allow you to move from postulates to conclusions. That is philosophical analysis. This kind of analysis requires clear statements of postulates bracketed and framed within the body of the argumentative text.

Instead, you locate concepts in sources external to your text. But you refer to your sources without identifying them: “I’m pointing to other people’s work that should be well enough known in design education. The analyses are not new, they are around in other realms, although they seem to be relatively absent in design research and design theory making.”

This statement involves three problems.

1) The first problem is a contradiction. It seems odd that the ideas to which you refer are “well enough known in design education” yet absent in design research and theorizing.

2) The second problem involves the truth either or both of these two claims. With no indication of the sources, it is impossible to know whether either of these two claims is true.

3) The third problem involves your use or misuse of the sources. The few sources you do cite don’t substantiate your claims.

Reasoning your way to a conclusion requires explicitly stating basic concepts, ideas, or postulates from which conclusions follow. Philosophical analysis requires postulates or statements. We don’t have to agree with the postulates or statements – we accept them for the purposes of the argument.

This kind of argument takes a specific form. First you state the postulates: “I postulate [x] and [d].” Then you reason your way to the conclusions showing the steps in the argument. Finally, you state the conclusions: “Given [x] and [d], then [y], [z], and [w] logically follow.” If you begin with postulates to which we assent, valid argument leads to a conclusion that requires our assent. For the purposes of argument, of course, we may accept a visibly false statement knowing that the conclusion will be false even though it is logically valid.

This does not happen when you write. The form your argument takes is, “[x] is well known to everyone but designers. [x] is true. I therefore argue [x].” In some cases, you reach a circular conclusion that starts and ends with [x]. In other cases, you move from [x] to [p] or [w] without explicitly stating [x], and without showing the steps of your argument.

There tend to be three problems in your wrangling. The first two involve your premises. You do not demonstrate that your premises (postulates, statements) are true. You do not make them explicit. The third involves your reasoning. Invalid reasoning leads to invalid conclusions.

But your post to Jerry does not involve reasoning. It is argument from authority. You take the role of authority by invoking external evidence without offering the warrants for your claims.

My concern has nothing to do with the lack of formal references. My concern is that you make claims to evidence without providing the evidence for your claims.

What you see as calls for formal referencing are actually arguments for evidence. Careful referencing allows readers to test your claims against the external evidence to which you refer. This enables readers to reach their own conclusions on the merits of your argument.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with reasoning. It’s all conjecture.

As for the marvelous proof, I’d be curious to see a proof rather than conjectural talk about a proof. Your comment on a “marvelous proof” seems to be an oblique reference to Pierre de Fermat. I assume, given your comments on reasoning, that you are using the term proof as mathematicians use it. In this sense, Merriam-Webster’s defines proof as, “b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.” This requires full explicit statements and a careful chain of argument.

If you cannot build a full reasoned argument from postulates to conclusions, Merriam-Webster’s has a more common definition of proof, “a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.”

This requires evidence.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China

--

Terry Love wrote:

—snip—

In what follows, I’d like to say in advance before Ken gets concerned, I’m simply sketching out an explanation of some concepts. I’m primarily using reasoning and as an aside, I’m pointing to other people’s work that should be well enough known in design education. The analyses are not new, they are around in other realms, although they seem to be relatively absent in design research and design theory making.

—snip—

A final example, as I raised in my previous post, is about responses, for which there is a marvellous proof!

—snip—

Jerry Diethelm wrote:

—snip—

This is an observation from considerable historic evidence, Terry. People do respond unpredictably in the ways that they interpret and make use of (afford) human artifacts ­ from ideas to Parthenons. I don’t think, for example, that Phidias, Ictinus and Callicrates ever intended their temple to be used as a mosque, army barracks, ammunition dump or women and children’s shelter. Or that their “Elgin Marbles” end up on display in the British Museum.

—snip—


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