JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2000

PHD-DESIGN 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Albatross (was Bicycle)

From:

"Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Lubomir S. Popov

Date:

Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:50:54 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (97 lines)

At 09:39 AM 10/15/2000 +0100, Chris RUST(SCS) wrote:
>
>I would be interested to hear the views of Lubomir, and others, on whether
the
>requirements to fly that distance under human power always existed, and were
>therefore a proper subject for scientific research (in Lubomir's terms), or
>whether it required the act of synthesis by the designers, testers and an
>athletic, heroic aeronaut first.  With hindsight we can say that the
>requirements were always true but they were certainly not accessible to
anybody
>other than the designers.

Chris,
Requirements belong to the categories of goals and objectives, and are not
subjected to the truth test. They are formulated by humans. How, it is
another question. In architectural programming, I assert that requirements
should be developed on the bases of applied (programming) research, but
many people formulate them on the basis of everyday experience or mere
wishes. All ways are legitimate, but I believe research provides better
chances for developing design requirements that will lead to a product that
will satisfy better current human needs.

> Were the designers engaged in a scientific venture and did their creation
>represent a contribution to knowledge?  
>Anybody out there want to take a potshot with their crossbow?

I would like first to mention that the Albatross case imlicitly envisages
mechanical design, which is fine, but in some way the situation is more
clear and evident in comparissonn with industrial/product/artistic design. 

Second, the answer of this question depends on the definition of knowledge.
Do we consider as "knowldge" the products of religious and mythological
thinkig? Yet, according to phylosophy of knowldge, these systems produce
their own knowlege. Religion produces knowledge about God. Myth-makers
produce knowldge about the world and the relationships in it.

I assume we are talking here about science and research and this provides
the context for interpretation of the term knowlege. 

The designers in this case were engaged in a design venture. Their creation
lead to a situation that if studied/researched will present us with an
arena for obtaining new knowldge. We can appreoach this arena with our
everyday logic and methods, or with scientific (I don't mean positivist!)
methodology. The second option will provide more trustworthy knowledge. I
would say that we will have scientific (not just positivist) knowledge if
we work with scientific methodology. 

The role of the designers in this case is the same as the role of designers
of experimental aparatuses. The designers of experimental aparatuses do not
produce any knowledge by the act of design. They design devices (mechanical
instruments) that are used in reseach. 

The real situations are often contaminated by many agents. In many
situations designers act as investigators and produce some kind of
knowledge (which could be pre-scientific or scientific), but this process
is a pre-scientific, non-professional. If the investigation is carried out
according to the norms and standards of a particular scientific paradigm,
than the knowledge produced will be much more trustworthy and the process
can be conceptualized as research. It is a matter of threshhold. Everybody
knows that Research with capital R is a sophisticated, elaborated and
professionalized version of everyday investigative actions. 

>If so, could that contribution have been made without the act of designing?

Yes! If we buy the aparatuses the designers of the aparatuses is absolutely
invisible. Nobody will credit him/her for the research outcomes. Have heard
about a designer of physics aparatuses who had become a Nobel laureate? (I
exclude the cases when the physicists themselves had designed their
aparatuses.)

Let's look again at experimental research and differentiate between the act
of designing aparatuses and the act of conducting the research itself. Just
stir off contaminating circumsances, e.g. researchers who design and
manufacture their own aparatuses and designers of mechanical devices who
engage in observations how the devices perform. In the ideal case, there
will be a team that will design the flying machine, and there will be
another team that will study the performance and the problems. The study of
this performance requires special procedures that designers may not be
trained to do or may not wish to do. This is reseach as opposed to design.


Regards,

Lubomir

PS It is difficult to talk about design and research without the concept of
technical disciplines. This concept will provide an analytical ground that
will allow us to see the relationships in a different way. The
conceptualizations and the conclusions will be both easier and somewhat
different. Know I am trying to say something with a language that is not
productive for that purpose. 




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager