sorry don,



science indeed explains how things work. 

in my characterizing science that way, i merely used a convenient shortcut to highlight the critical difference between science and design.



of course scientists observe what they theorize.

of course they develop consensus on what it is they observe repeatedly and theorize verifiably 

certainly, a theory explains observable phenomena but it goes beyond observables by predicting what else could be observed.

naturally, scientist engage systematically with what they seek to describe. 

when you say science studies the structure and behavior of nature, this implies looking at how something is doing what it does - the solar system, an autopoietic system, river systems, the ecology, the internet, mechanisms

yes, classification does not explain how something works, but it offers (i would say imposes) a convenient conceptual system that structures distinct natural phenomena

during the last 300 years, biology has moved far beyond linnaeus' classification (e.g. darwin's theory of evolution). 

yet most sciences have their taxonomies. i would say all sciences start by distinguishing phenomena (things) and seek to relate them causally, statistically, behaviorally, or teleologically.



all of this is obvious to me. 

the point i made (in shorthand)  is well supported in herbert simon's the sciences of the artificial, who observed science and design to have unlike epistemologies. 

creating something new that theories cannot (yet) predict and others may not have anticipated is what defines designers, whether they make timid or revolutionary differences. the emphasis is on the making of difference not explaining the differences others have made.



i agree with you that design thinking is a myth, a sales pitch, a way to impress clients to get a job, by claiming to have mental qualities they don't have.



to me, this utility is not a good enough reason to perpetuate that myth or broaden it by attaching to it other mythical constructions.



klaus 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Norman

Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 7:56 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Science does not explain how things work, nor change how things work. And DT is a useful myth



​Sorry folks, but this is not the definition of science:

​



On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Klaus Krippendorff < [log in to unmask]> wrote:



> i said:

> "*any science explains how things work*. designing means proposing 

> something that changes how things work."

>





​Here is one-- far better -- definition



the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.​ (Courtesy of Google: "define:science")





​THis, by the way, is why mathematics is not a science.

​



​Biology, the science, started out by classifying life forms.

Classification is not explanation.



Science is actually a process by which people come to consensus by making claims that are verifiable and repeatable. Over decades, consensus is arrived at. (The current crisis in experimental fields in the bio-sciences, social sciences and medical sciences is because many results cannot be

repeated: note that this does not invalidate science -- it simply says that promotion pressures caused people to do bad science.)



My theory of science is that it is layered. Each level of description has a layer below it, which is both descriptive at its level and explanatory of thye level above.



---



And while I am at it:



On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Klaus Krippendorff < [log in to unmask]> wrote:



> i said:

> "any science explains how things work. *designing means proposing 

> something that changes how things work."*

>



Designing does not necessarily change how things work. I can design things to change what you believe, or give you a new framework, or ...  .  (OK, maybe that means I change how your brain works.)

​---



*Design Thinking as a Useful Myth -- A Public Relations Term*



Someone else in the long, fruitless discussion about Design Thinking wrote that everything happens in the mind. Well, that depends upon your definition of mind. To me, that is correct, because to me, mental phenomena are most subconscious. Some disagreed because they said not everything is conscious. OK, if you want to define mind that way, say that everything takes place in the brain. Of course, much knowledge comes about through social interaction, group processes, and the use of artifacts, which is why designers like some (or all) of the following: creativity sessions with multiple people, post-it notes, making things, and drawing.



For me, *Design Thinking is a valuable Public Relations term.* I don't care what it means. The reason I like it is because it helps non-designers recognize that design is more than physical appearance.



You can read my writings about why I once argued that "Design Thinking is A Useful Myth."  (Just Google the phrase in quotes)



Don













Don Norman

Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego [log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/  www.jnd.org  <http://www.jnd.org/>





-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------