Hi Ken,
Thank you for your questions about my response to Martin.
I didn't respond to Martin's question directly because I thought it rhetorical and that every researcher on this list would know the answer.
So, just to put it on record, here is my position.
An important aspect of research is that the person who creates an analysis or theory is irrelevant to assessing the validity.
It is important to put the status of the person completely aside in judging whether an analysis or theory is correct or not.
It is a major problem if the status or characteristics of persons involved are included in judging whether an analysis or theory is correct or not.
Otherwise, bias is introduced, and the research process is compromised - and where this happens in a field it contributes to a theory mess of falsely validated theories. This may be a contribution to the theory mess of the design research field.
Hence, from this perspective, the analyses and theory proposals of the youngest and most inexperienced researchers carry exactly the same value as experienced big shots such as yourself.
It is the analyses and theories that are tested not the person.
The value in the analysis and theories is only in the theories to be judged theory qua theory rather than theory qua rhetoric.
Hence, who I am, and whether I am good, bad, insightful or deluded, reliable or troublesome is irrelevant in the research and theory making processes.
Same for all of us.
I report my analyses and theory proposals. Anyone can check the reasoning of them. Where the reasoning is only outlined you can make up and test your own reasoning following the outline. The reasoning for many of my analyses and theory proposals are, however, well documented (most of my papers are at www.love.com.au and many analyses are on phd-design). In many cases also things are self-evident, e.g. the obvious epistemological mess of design theory and the limited advances since the 1950s. In other cases, they are supported by established analyses that it would be reasonable to know in the design research tradition of the DRS.
Where people want to check the validity of any design theories and analyses (including the reasoning about them) I recommend the meta-theoretical analysis tool I devised in the late 1990s that you posted on your Academia page
It is described in Love, T. (2000). Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical Structure for Design Theory. Design Studies, 21(3), 293-313. And a preprint is available at http://www.love.com.au/docs/2000/2000desstud-metatheory-design.pdf
As a personal aside, one of the reasons that I personally know the theories of the design research literature are a mess is I have tested most of them over the last 40 years. The Meta-theoretical Analysis Tool (MTA) was developed to help me to do it more efficiently and effectively. From my experience, it works well.
You might ask where are the outputs of my analyses using MTA. They underpin my publications and my posts to this list.
Warm regards,
Terry
--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, MISI
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 Ken Friedman
Sent: Saturday, 19 September 2015 5:09 AM
To: PhD-Design
Subject: Re: can machines design?
Dear Terry,
Perhaps I missed something here. Martin Salisbury wrote, “In your demands for a Pol Pot ‘Year Zero’ approach to design research in posts under this heading and others over recent weeks (and recent years), you have variously described the inherent weaknesses of human beings in relation to design. Here are a just a few of them: “... (our) processes. are very varied and none (sic) as we perceive them.” … “... (our actions) different from what we subjectively perceive what we do.” … “(we are) incompetent” … “(we are) biased” … “...the illusions, delusions, errors, mistakes, fallacies, false premises of humans …”
Then Martin asked that “you please explain why we should believe that your own arguments and propositions are not similarly biased, flawed and unreliable?”
You responded by agreeing that you are “as bad or worse than anyone.”
Following this, you launched into an explanation of your views.
If you are delusional, and prone to errors, mistakes, fallacies, and false premises, why should we accept your explanations? What reason do we have to believe that design theory is in the dire state you proclaim? And what reason do we have to believe that your answers offer a way forward?
Martin has asked a sound logical question. Is there a logical answer?
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|