Dear Ken,
Thanks for your messages.
You were correct in your assumption that logic can be tested in deriving the outcome I suggested, but then your reduced the picture to a simple short path of syllogisms focusing on noun events roughly following the example of 'If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man...'.
For me, it's obvious the focus is causal logic, i.e. the *reasons* why things happen in particular ways and why the limiting picture I suggested was more correct than a more general picture. To indicate this, I transitioned to using 'reasoning', i.e. the logic of reasons and causes.
To indicate why I feel the situation is more complex than the simple syllogism picture (which you also saw as needing more explanation), I pointed to five assumptions I was making that each added several new dimensions to the situation in focus and increase the complication of the reasoning.
In essence, my comment to Don followed the application of inequality maths to the reasoning/logic about the limits to the quality of design outputs in the use of people and automated design systems.
Heck, in the limit one aspect of what I wrote is pretty simple - in the limit we get better design outputs if we put a chunk of our design output into designing automated design systems that design better than we do rather than simply using them.
Cheers,
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: Sunday, 6 September 2015 11:35 PM
To: Terence Love
Cc: PhD-Design
Subject: [SPAM] Re: How can we build technology so that people plus technology is better than either alone?
Dear Terry,
You’ve made a series of statement with which I can partly agree, but you haven’t demonstrated that one question logically leads to the next. If you were using the word “logic” in the loose sense of some form of reasoning, then I wouldn’t have asked a question based on logic.
You’ve made five assertions here of different kinds. Some seem relatively reasonable to me, in the sense that some aspects of these five statements more or less depict the world as it is. Others seem quite problematic. To me, these problems are of two kinds. One kind of problem involves theoretical assumptions, philosophical entailments, and conceptual pre-suppositions that must be made clear for the statements to be meaningful. The other kind of problem involves empirical truth claims — statements in which you assert something is so without providing evidence for your claims.
This is one of those situations in which there is no good outcome. I don’t agree with your argumentation. You have shifted from an argument in which you formerly asserted logic. You can show a logical argument in a few simple steps. Now you say that it is not a case of logic, but a case of “reasoning.” In this case, you are making claims for which I see no evidence.
At the same time, you don’t agree with my reasoning. You say that I’m mistaken or ill-informed, and that I don’t account for all the facts.
My question to you began when you wrote, “if you think through the logic of getting the best design out of humans and designing systems together, in the limit you finish up at my question.” The question at which you claim one finishes up is: "How can we design automated design systems to design BETTER than humans can?” I would have been happy to see a logical demonstration of this assertion. I’m also happy to stop here.
Warm wishes,
Ken
> On 2015Sep06, at 16:59, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts.
>
> I suggest a better reasoning is different and includes at least five other factors:
>
> 1. In life, design activity is a recursive layered activity that
> includes designing the tools that are used within it, and these have
> implications for design quality if you assume at least some of the tools can kead to better design outcomes than human designers achieve without them; 2. That it is important to avoid the biases of seeing and assessing the quality of design activity purely through our opinions as humans, i.e avoiding an obsessively human/person-eyed view; 3. Realising that human beings are terribly incompetent at design, and that this relatively huge lack of competence has unhelpfully shaped our language and ways of thinking about design activity in order to avoid facing up to this fact (or rather normalising it in ways we find personally comfortable). Don's compromise position is a small example of this.
> 4. A widespread and common lack of awareness and basic knowledge (especially in academics) of the everyday range and limitations of human skills.
> 5. Evidence from real world design processes outside
> academically-defined design activities
>
> This leads to a different sort of reasoning about the limits of the higher aspirations of design research and design practices.
>
> And that's my second post.
>
> And, in my previous post, what I wrote was different from what you inferred...
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
