|
Dear Martin,
What you write is fair. The major difference between expert opinion and mere statements of belief is that expert opinion can be supported by carefully stated explanation. Another way of putting it is reasoned argument from evidence.
That does not make even an expert opinion correct. On a few occasions, I have appeared in court as an expert witness. The court works hard to establish the credentials and experience of those whose expert witness testimony will be taken into evidence. Even so, there comes a moment when the court must decide which among conflicting experts to believe. A jury makes that decision in some cases. In cases where a jury is not required, a judge decides between the views of expert witnesses who testify for each side.
What I’m asking for is not that anyone should agree with. I ask that people present the argument for their assertions.
You’re stating your views and raising valid questions without offering hard assertions. As I see it, that is a valid use of opinion. And as I wrote earlier, questions are always valid.
If I can offer a viewpoint here on Simon’s definition of design, it does not include politicians. The class of politicians includes anyone running for office or taking a political position into the forum of public debate.
In contrast, Simon’s definition of design does include legislators. Legislators pass laws that specify future actions of citizens or of the government. Together with enabling legislation, budgets, and instructions to the administrators of the government, these laws constitute a kind of design as Simon defines it. Nearly legislators begin as politicians — but not all politicians become legislators. Politicians as a class do not fit within Simon’s definition. Successful politicians elected to office, on the other hand, often fit within Simon’s definition.
So I understand your question and your comments. This is my view of what Simon would say.
It may be that there is no use for all these definitions. This issue has often interested me — it also makes little sense on those days when I find the topic as needless as many seem to do.
Just before you posted, someone wrote me an interesting note explaining why he disagrees with Simon. The difference between his post and some of the other posts I’ve seen is that offers a careful and articulate reason for disliking Simon’s definition. I don’t have to agree with him to respect and think about the issues he put forward. Perhaps he will post — I suggested that he should do so.
For me, the issue is not whether I agree. The issue is that a comment, an opinion, or a question should give me something useful to think about. Your comments and questions always do.
Yours,
Ken
--
Martin Salisbury wrote:
—snip—
Dear Ken, Richard and all,
Warning: opinions coming up.
“All opinions are permissible. Not all opinions are equal in merit.” May I just say, Ken, that your opinions about opinions are as valid as anyone’s.
If I understand correctly, this particular incarnation of these recurrent debates about the definition of ‘design’ began on another thread when Don Norman forwarded an article that revealed the public perception of the meaning of ‘design’. When I first joined this list many years ago, I was extremely surprised (in my naivety as a product of an art school) by the various contributors whose fields, in the context of research, came under the title ‘design’. The only thing that surprised me about the article was that it came as a surprise to anyone. I am not making an argument here, only observing (or opining perhaps) that the vast majority of activities/ areas of study that underpin the contributions to this list do not represent or reflect the general perceptions of the meaning of the word ‘design’ or indeed the spread of design subjects in academia. I would also suggest (or opine) that many from the Art & Design disciplines that are more closely aligned with public perceptions of 'design' have left or avoided the PhD design list, feeling somewhat marginalized. Perhaps this leads to a further disconnect between debates on this list and the profession(s) of ‘designer’?
I recall a previous list discussion on the topic that similarly became lost in definitions of ‘definition’ and debates about meanings of other words. Correct me if I am wrong but the usual mention of Herbert Simon’s ridiculously inclusive definition was followed by a thread titled something like ‘Are politicians designers?’. My answer would be ‘no’. In my humble opinion, most intelligent impartial observers would be very surprised by a definition of 'design' or 'designer' that did not include reference to aesthetics.
Might it be more helpful perhaps, to debate the difference between the activities of design and planning or between designer and planner?
Best wishes,
Martin
—snip—
Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (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 ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
