Dear Ken,
Yes, I agree. I was anticipating that my example of ocean currents would NOT be seen as a wicked problem. I was trying to illustrate exactly the differences you raise.
What then about the question of whether "tomorrow" as it might appear as part of planning, is an example of a scientific problem and hence open to a definite solution or an example of a wicked problem and hence not open to a definitive solution?
Cheers
Keith
> On 26 Mar 2014, at 9:46 pm, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On this basis, ocean currents do not make an [X] or a wicked problem out of the location of bits of a plane. No matter how difficult it is to solve this problem in fact, it is essentially a solvable though extremely difficult problem.
>
> There is a significant difference between extremely difficult scientific problems and "wicked problems" as Rittel and Webber define them. This including currently intractable problems for which we do not yet have method — scientists and mathematicians have solved many such problems over the centuries by developing new methods and new branches of research. There are many ways to solve extremely difficult problems and currently intractable problems that should, in theory, be tractable. (For numerous specific examples, see: Aczel 1996; Einstein 1998 [1905]; Hersh 1998; Singh 1997).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|