> On 3 Dec 2014, at 2:58 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 2. *Intrinsically* non-predictable?
Number 2 it is.
>
> It’s a strong claim you make. I'd like to see your reasoning as to why the claim that communication designs are *intrinsically* non-predictable should be true.
If you follow the arguments I have used elsewhere both on this list and in a few books and papers I have written you would be able to put together the reasoning that leads to this claim. Actually, I don't think it's a particularly strong claim and I'm hardly alone in making it. But, be that as it may, can I suggest you indulge me in this foolish aberration in this instance. Let's have a thought experiment and consider what follows in relation to the thread on clinical research and clinical guidelines in information design, if we are dealing with a phenomenon that is intrinsically non-predictable?
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/blog/ <http://communication.org.au/blog/>
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
> On 3 Dec 2014, at 2:58 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> It’s a strong claim you make. I'd like to see your reasoning as to why the claim that communication designs are *intrinsically* non-predictable should be true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|