 |
 |
Hi, Terry, All writing is rhetorical, fancy or plain. In the absence of evidence that demonstrates the truth of a claim, your writing is only rhetorical. For reasoning to be truthful and useful in its conclusions, the premises must be true. You have yet to demonstrate that your premises are true. We all agree on the need for better models. We all make reasonable predictions of some kind. Life would be impossible without doing so. Where we differ is on the possibility of a workable quantitative method for modelling design that accounts for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way. The claim you have repeatedly made in criticising contributions to this thread and others is that there is a workable quantitative method for modelling design that accounts for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way. Gunnar asked whether you argue that “(2) human behavior can be predicted (i.e., that someone is currently able to do it)? If (2), will you give us some examples of this being done?” You answered, “What I did is an example as you requested.” I saw no examples. It is rhetorical chicanery to suggest that your comments to different posts constitute an example of the successful prediction of human behaviour. You seem to be claiming that you somehow predicted some form of behaviour that your posts demonstrate. This is sophistry of the kind we do not accept in student papers. A prediction requires a precise statement of something that will happen at a future time. It must be more precise than the notion, “When I post this comment, others will predictably disagree with me.” Have you read Jeremy Bernstein’s (1993) essay, “How Can We Be Sure That Albert Einstein Was Not A Crank?” If not, perhaps you should. The claim you have repeatedly made in criticising contributions to this thread and others is this: There is a workable quantitative method for modelling design that accounts for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way. Do you believe that this is so or do you not? If you DO believe this is so, you do not agree with Don’s comments. If you do NOT believe that this is not so, why do you repeatedly criticise the rest of us for methodological weakness on the grounds that we do not use quantitative modelling methods for design that account for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way? If these methods do not exist, you cannot criticise us because we do not use them. Getting a clear answer out of you seems to be impossible. You don’t write straight and you don’t write plain. You dodge, swerve, and twist about. I am asking a simple question in my words. Whether or not you have said something that I am misinterpreting, I would like an answer to this question. This question goes to your beliefs and claims, not to the reality or the reasoning behind them. Do you claim that there exists today a workable quantitative method for modelling design that accounts for complex dynamic systems with multiple loops of action and behaviour in a predictable way? Yes or no. Yours, Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015 Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn — Reference Bernstein, Jeremy. 1993. “How Can We Be Sure That Albert Einstein Was Not A Crank?” Cranks, Quarks and the Cosmos. New York: Basic Books. pp. 15-27. -- > On 2014Dec06, at 09:32, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote: —snip-- > Simply delightful drama and typical rhetoric > > Its why I prefer plain reasoning. —snip-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------