 |
 |
I just realised I didn't finish and send a previous mail, so I added them into this one. I hope this isn't too confusing: -- Derek wrote: > Andy's smart, so you have to read things a few times to figure out what's what. I think I agree with both of us too, but I'm still working on an angle here. No resorting to flattery to get out of this one Derek! -- Fil wrote: > I agree with you: >> The key difference between the natural sciences and design synthesis is the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning. > Though I'm not sure if it's *the* key difference or just *a* key difference. > > My question is: why do I find myself agreeing with both Derek and Andy? Good catch. You're right, not the key difference but a key difference. I think there's another one which came to mind when listening to the chemist Peter Atkins (talking about his new book 'On Being') debating with philosopher Jonathan Ree. It appeared clear that, for Atkins, anything that wasn't possible to analyse through the scientific method was simply nonsense, emotion and whimsy. On that view (as they discuss in the programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdh3s ) looking at the cadaver of a loved one is just looking at a pile of atoms. Anyone who has stood by the body of a loved one who has died knows that's not what it feels like. While you might be able to scan my brain and tell me that the feelings I'm feeling are just neural patterns and a combination of electricity and chemistry, it's the science of it, not the feeling, that becomes unimportant in that moment. Ree argues, correctly in my view, that there are more than two choices between "possible to analyse with the scientific method and thus important" and "nonsense". The main concern is that it's a tautological argument. If the scientific method only allows you to measure certain things in a certain way, then of course some things fall outside that method. To then argue that the things that fall outside that method are not worth measuring is no argument at all. Derek's comment of, "how do you know design thinking when you see it? How do you falsify that claim? How do you measure it? When is generative about embracing it? That is, what is the theory that give it distinctive form?" sails close to that, but I think leaves enough room to embrace both design approaches and rigorous method. -- Terry - I don't see abduction as a dead end at all, rather a jumping off point for explaining and articulating the process of design synthesis. I urge you to read the Kolko material if you haven't already. He also draws upon Philip Johnson-Laird, whose work deals a great deal with how humans think and reason. Here's the specific quote from Kolko about it: > Johnson-Laird has argued contradictorily that, in the context of generative and creative problem solving, the insight is developed not in a "flash" at all. Instead, a four step process leads to an insight, which only seems to appear instantly: > > The current problem solving strategy fails to yield a solution, given the existing constraints. > > There is a tacit consideration of the new constraints in the strategy. > > The constraints are relaxed (or changed) in a new way, thus broadening the problem space and allowing for further consideration. > > Many changes in constraints lead nowhere, but, with perseverance, a change may be made that leads at once to a solution of the problem. The reference to this is here: Philip Johnson-Laird, "The Shape of Problems." in The Shape of Reason: Essays in Honour of Paolo Legrenzi, by V Girotto, edited by V Girotto, 3—26. (Psychology Press, 2005). -- Derek wrote: > My quip about "design thinking" earlier might better be rephrased this way: The conversation we are having (circuitous though it may be) at least clusters around a genuine effort to find grounds for making claims about design as practice, and design theory. What see "design thinking" (ala IDEO and Stanford) doing is prosyletizing a reified approach to thinking and acting, and asking for "buy in." That is not building theory, and I'll stand my by earlier claim that all this is serious when it impacts others. I understand you can view it this way. I view it from the other end though. They're not building a theory and asking for buy in because they already have the buy in – IDEO are one of the world's most successful design firms. What Tim Brown is explaining/prosyletizing in terms of design thinking is articulating their practice and experience gained over the years. It's not really a "theory" at all and I'm not sure that's the point of it. The point of it is to expose a working method to people who aren't used to or have difficulty with working that way. The argument is that it can be a powerful way of developing insight and innovation. I think it's important to reiterate a point I mailed you about off this list too. Design does affect others, it always has and sometimes in deadly ways. There a plenty of examples of design flaws and design failures that have been deadly and there are still plenty of situations (think: cars, planes, emergency systems, nuclear reactors, weapons systems, traffic signage, medication information, for starters...) where design has a life or death role to play. Perhaps the issue to tackle here is that design works in across a spectrum from the throwaway and frivolous right through to the very serious. I imagine there's not a lot of frivolity in international peace, development and security, so your starting at a particular point on this spectrum and looking down towards the frivolous end. Cheers, Andy