Hi Ken,
You asked me to define what I mean by 'epistemological validity' as in
<snip>' How do you define epistemologically valid theory. . .'
Good question.
The role of 'reasons' in literature and discussion seems like a good
starting point.
As far as I can see, 'reasons' - whether explicitly or implicitly
describing, explaining, using or justifying reasons and their consequences -
is the central role of all literature and discussion, theoretical and
otherwise; for example, the reasons why or why not things happened, and why
or why not they may happen. This seems to be the only universal
distinguishing factor between trivial and non-trivial communication. The
proof of it seems to be that there don't seem to be any exceptions.
An example, a phrase such as 'the sky is blue' only is significant, relevant
and non-trivial if this fact or information offers an explicit or implicit
reason for something else, as in:
The sky is blue. . . and that is the reason the weather will be fine
today, or
The sky is blue . . . and the reason for that is the effect of the
atmosphere, or
The sky is blue. . . and that is the reason I'm happy, etc
Interestingly, the recursive nature of 'describing, explaining, using or
justifying reasons' means all and any aspect of it can be reduced to a
hierarchy of 'explaining reasons and their consequences'.
So in short, I'm suggesting the central role of all literature and
discussion is in explicitly or implicitly explaining reasons and their
consequences. If you can think of an exception, I'd like to hear it.
Surfacing this 'role of "describing reasons"' in looking at communication
between two parties (Alice and Bob); the communication is only effective if:
1. What is communicated by one party (Alice) is shaped in such a way
that her implicit or explicit explanation of reasons and consequences are
coherent and offer the possibility of validation in some way.
2. The interpretation by Bob of Alice's implicit or explicit
explanation of reasons and consequences is done so in a way that Bob can
test them for coherence and validity in some way.
There are many many ways the coherence and validity of someone's
explanations of reasons and consequences might be tested. They often do
different jobs. For example:
1. Does it follow the usual rule of grammar?
2. Does their pace and sequencing of ideas line up with what is
currently considered culturally acceptable for that topic and situation.
3. Have they communicated using the right sorts of words.
4. Do they seem to be the 'right' sort of person. Do they seem
truthful, have high status, wear the right hat, have a religious background,
come from the right class, etc
5. Does the communication trigger implicit or encultured responses that
would make it believable without careful inspection
All of these and many other *indirect* approaches are ways that people use
to informally make decisions about validity of a communication. There are
many names for them: social validity, rhetoric validity etc. Two
characteristics of these indirect tests of validity are: they test validity
of the communication in terms of something else, and they are ineffective
because they can be deluded. Those using such tests for validity can be
easily misled. Obvious examples are the ways the Sokal hoax or hornswoggle
that misled experienced academics, the use of social engineering for
computer malware, politics, and advertising.
The *direct* approach to testing the validity of a communication (remember -
implicit and explicit explanation of reasons and consequences) is via
checking the pathways of reasoning leading up to and extended from and
implicit in the communication. That is the focus is on the formal assessment
of the validity of the relationships of the knowledge expression (reasons
and consequences) within and without the communication in terms of its
epistemic relations. That is, the study of the validity of the communication
in epistemic terms.
The formal study of entities' epistemic relationships (reasons and
consequences) is 'epistemology'. Hence, it seems to make sense to call the
activity of using epistemology in the testing of the validity of
communications (literature, discourse) via study of their epistemic
relations, 'testing their epistemological validity'. ' Epistemologically
valid theories' are those that stand up to that kind of critical scrutiny.
You also asked me to define the characteristics required of <snip>' a
coherent and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of
design theory'.
The above gives half the story. The other half is noting that the focus is
the 'theoretical framework' rather than an individual design theory. The
reason for focusing on 'theoretical framework' of design theories is that it
makes more sense than looking at individual design theories. Theorising
about the different elements of design activity requires addressing many
issues in a variety of theoretical realms (cognitive, physical,
psychological, business process, informatics, manufacturing, etc) and
disciplines. For any individual theory to be useful and make sense in
epistemological terms and in terms of being useful in building a discipline
of design theory, it must integrate well theoretically with a larger number
of other theories in all these different realms, as well as different
theories about different elements of design activity. From reviewing the
literature and bodies of design theories and concepts, it is clear there are
a few different theory frameworks that each have theory niches in all the
different theoretical realms that could potentially be filled and form a
coherent and complete integrated framework of theoretical representation of
design activity. The most obvious way forward on that is to start testing
the candidate theoretical frameworks for epistemological validity to at
least weed out those that are inconsistent, incoherent or insufficient in
scope to include theories about all aspects of design. This also can be seen
as contributing to testing for potential general theories of design.
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: Wednesday, 14 August 2013 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Epistemologically Valid Theory
Hi, Terry,
Thanks for your reply. I have downloaded the literature review to which you
referred. It runs 82 pages, so it's going to take a few days to digest.
At the calculated risk of starting a new thread, I want to ask a question
that you have not answered, at least not on the list. On several occasions,
you have referred referred to such concepts as epistemologically valid
theory, theoretical theory versus atheoretical theory, and now "a coherent
and epistemologically validly justified theoretical framework of design
theory."
You have never defined these in any of your posts to the list.
or the kind of theory you label theoretical theory? What characteristics or
criteria do you require of a coherent and epistemologically validly
justified theoretical framework of design theory?
Since the answer to this question will clarify many recent threads, as well
as placing your literature review in context, I should like to your
definitions and criteria.
With the answer to this question as a background, I will respond to the
literature review on the weekend or early next week.
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<h
ttp://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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
