Dear Harold, Ken and all,
A core problem on this issue of 'discovery' vs 'design' is lack of sound
clear theory about the human internal biological (and psychological)
processes resulting in any design. This is whether they include
collaboration, communication or not.
Faced with the question of what happens when a person thinks up a new design
or element of a design or idea of a design, there is difficulty.
The subjective experience of design is that prior to a certain point in
time there is a lack of an idea and after that point in time the idea is in
consciousness. (for an analysis of the same situation in terms of
subconsciousness simply use the same argument and apply it to subconscious
rather than conscious thought.
Prior to that moment, the design idea is unknown (in either conscious or
subconscious thought depending on your mileage). After that moment, the
design idea is known.
This design process exactly parallels the internal subjective conscious or
subconscious processes of discovery as it related to finding new phenomena.
On this basis, one must define the internal processes of design and
discovery as identical.
This applies regardless of whether the outcome is use of natural environment
or use of some technology, i.e. design or discovery.
I suggest the best, and perhaps only, epistemologically satisfactory path
out of this problem is to separate the activities of design and discovery in
terms of their outcomes by defining them in the following way:
'A design' - a *specification* of something that is to be made or done
'A discovery' - new knowledge
This neatly resolves not only the problem being discussed, it also resolves
failures due to contradictory overlaps of descriptions of these issues, as
well, as I've written earlier, the problems of definition of design, and the
issues relating to differences between descriptions and definitions as they
relate to design and discovery.
Best wishes from hazy Delhi,
Terry
--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
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: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harold Nelson
Sent: Friday, 10 January 2014 11:53 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: Four Orders of Design
Dear Ken and all
Happy New Year from the edge of the polar vortex!
I wanted to respond briefly to your post referencing the 'design of fire'
presented in the book "The Design Way". I have added the reference to the
book so that those who are interested can take a look for themselves.
Nelson, Harold G., and Stolterman, Erik. The Design Way: Intentional Change
in an Unpredictable World; 2nd Ed., Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2012
I think that the point Erik and I made in the book was that some habits of
thought biased modern thinking towards labeling things that were essentially
the outcomes of design agency as 'discoveries'. We did not make a case that
the 'design of fire' preceded other types of designed artifacts or that it
was the first instance of design. That is not the case. Also we did not
claim that the 'element' of fire was designed any more than we would claim
that the design of stone tools is the design of flint. We were talking about
the 'design of fire' as a technology in the same manner that historians,
scientists and teachers talk about the 'discovery' of fire as the discovery
of the technology historically. The discovery of gravity or North America by
Europeans are 'discoveries' certainly but the wheel was not a discovery in
this same sense-it was the result of the human capacity to design-to
intentionally make things appear in the world that did not previously exist.
Such biases in our habits of thought-i.e. scientizing design-limits or
blocks scholarly and professional explorations of the nature of design
capacitation in humans. In our book we make the case that design needs to be
approached as a unique form of 'inquiry for action' and not merely as a form
of applied science or applied art.
Regards
Harold
TheDesignWay.net
AccidentalVagrant.blogspot.com
AdvancedDesignInstitute.blogspot.com/
OrganizationalDesignCompetence.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|