Hello,
Here is the first of three emails on definitions of design.
Definitions have two aspects:
* Structure
* Meaning
One of the puzzling things for me in the discussions to date. I have been
describing why the structure of definitions of design shows that they fail
as definitions. Responses have been primarily about meaning.
The validity of a definition depends primarily on its structure.
The meaning of a definition depends on its structure.
For definitions, structure comes first, meaning can be allocated later.
For testing the validity of a definition, if its structure does not fit the
needs of what is required of a definition, then the definition fails,
regardless of any meanings in it.
Testing the validity of the structure of a statement that claims to be a
definition is the first step rather than looking at its meaning.
The structural requirements of any definition include:
1. The definition must describe a complete and continuous boundary in
the realm of abstract concepts
2. This boundary must wholly contain some concepts and wholly exclude
all other concepts
3. The definition must be wholly in the realm of theoretical concepts.
For a definition, everything including physical and subjective phenomena are
addressed as abstract concepts.
4. The definition describes the boundary in such a way as to include
only those concepts that are to be included and to exclude those concepts
that are to be excluded
5. The boundary defined in the definition must circumnavigate the
boundaries of all concepts that are bounded in the definition
6. The boundary defined in definition must not cross the boundary of
any concepts that are bounded in the definition.
7. The definition must be fixed in time i.e. the definition must
remain consistent. In theory but extremely rarely in practice, a definition
could define a boundary that changed in time, although the prescription of
the definition of that boundary must remain fixed in time. I know of no
definition of design that attempts a dynamic boundary definition.
8. The terminology used in the definition must be unambiguous.
9. Where there is the possibility alternative meanings could be
inferred from the definition, then the structure of the definition must
additionally include clauses that remove any ambiguities.
10. The boundary described in a definition must both include complete
concepts and exclude complete concepts and the sum of the included concepts
and excluded concepts must be the universe of concepts.
11. The structure and meanings of the definition must not fail any of the
tests for fallacies.
12. Any boundary defined in the definition must be singular. I.e. there
must be only one of each type of boundary.
13. The boundary described by the definition must be of a necessary and
sufficient nature. That is the elements of the description of the boundary
must all be necessary to defining whatever is defined, and the elements of
the description of the boundary must be sufficient to include the concepts
to be included and exclude those that are to be excluded.
14. There must not be contradiction between concepts included or excluded.
For example, the definition of X is that it only exists as a sound and is
coloured blue.
15. Any form a definition must define exactly the same boundaries are any
other form of the same definition.
16. The boundary defined must not include everything as it then no longer
functions as a definition
17. The definition must not be tautological
The choice of concepts (i.e. the meaning of the definition) to be included
or excluded (i.e. the meaning of the definition) can occur later. This
choice of concepts is the meaning rather than the structure of the
definition.
The following are three examples of statements that fail structurally as
definitions.
Take, for example, the statement that a cat is an animal with four legs.
Does this satisfy the structural requirements of being a definition as
listed above? The boundary surrounds the concepts of 'animal' and 'four
legged'. There are, however, other four legged animals than cats, so the
definition can be seen to fail on one hand because it is insufficient, and
on the other hand because to define 'cat' requires that the boundary of the
definition of 'cat' must to cut across the boundary of the concept of 'four
legged' in some unspecified way.
Another example of a class of statements that structurally fail as
definitions are ones of the form, 'Design includes..' These definitions fail
structurally because the do not define a continuous boundary that explicitly
includes certain concepts and excludes others. Without a fully defined
boundary there is no definition.
A third example of a class of statements that structurally fail as
definitions are ones of the form, 'Design is what designers do.' This form
of statement fails structurally as a definition because the boundary is
incomplete and crosses conceptual boundaries. On one hand it fails because
effectively design would include everything that designers do and designers
do many things that would not be included in design activity (trim their
toenails, watch television, sweep floors.etc.). On the other hand, it fails
because others who would be not regarded as designers or doing design would
be included because they do many of the same activities that designers, and
many of these would not be regarded as being design activity. Third, it
fails because it crosses a conceptual boundary. Four, it fails because of
the implied tautology that 'Design is what designers do and what designers
do is design'.
Without even beginning to explore the meanings included in any definition of
design, it is possible to test whether the statements claimed to be a
definition of design can actually function structurally as a definition.
It is on these grounds that I have been commenting on whether what is
claimed as definitions of design can function as definitions. First is the
test whether a statement claimed as a definition of design can validly
define anything or not. Any meanings contained in the statements claimed as
definitions are entirely secondary.
In the next of these three emails on definitions, I'll focus on the
statements that Simon and Merriam Webster claim as definitions of design.
Best wishes,
Terence
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
www.loveservices.com.au <http://www.loveservices.com.au>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
