Hi Peter,
Hi Peter,
I can understand you agenda. The only thing is that you are speaking about
design, while I am talking about science. If you are a designer speaking
about science, I can understand you and even accept what you say. However,
the spirit of my post was much different and directed to much different
audience -- people who share common conventions and do not need examples.
How examples help shape common conventions is a completely different topic
and I am not going to engage in it now.
With appreciation for you ideas,
Lubomir
At 10:59 PM 10/7/2002 -0400, peter storkerson wrote:
>
>
>Dear Lubomir (and colleagues),
>
>
>I wanted to respond to your posting with some caveats which are presented in
>a spirit of collaboration - not criticism- because they are representative
>of the problematics of my field of communication design. I do not represent
>them as characteristic of others. If they are different from others, that,
>too is a source of interesting and valuable exchange.
>
>
>First, as you point out, in science, abstractions work because there are
>agreed upon "examples" which enable participants to construe meaning. In the
>second paragraph, you use the term "reductionism" I am presuming that you
>are using the two terms in proximity because they have a lot to do with each
>other. I may be pushing the envelope on that aspect, but if so, please bear
>with me. In part, at least, I am using your posting for my own purposes.
>
>
>
>I would like to focus on the nature of these ³examples², i.e. that they are
>experimental or observational, thus experiential. Scientists write and share
>"recipes" by which they reliably turn their raw materials (abstract
>hypotheses and theories) into events and entities (experiences). In this way
>there are stable relationships between specified concepts and operational
>ostensions. As you say, competent scientists are also competent
>practitioners (cooks) or they rely on other scientists as cooks. We choose
>to elevate theory over practice while in reality they are inseparable.
>
>
>I make two assertions. First, without the translation into experience,
>abstractions would be meaningless and unintelligible. It has been argued
>that a theoretical entity that does not have measurable experiential
>(physical) characteristics is unintelligible, and the field of scientific
>imaging exists, to no small extent in extending sensory apparatus to make
>abstractions intelligible. In short, as lakoff and Johnson argue, even
>abstract reason entails embodiment.
>
>
>Second, scientists carry in their heads, very practical understandings of
>the translations from abstract to physical. They can, for example, imagine
>what "M V squared" "means" in the sense of how it plays out when the car
>hits the abutment. We all know about engineers who walk in, all excited
>about their little black boxes, which are meaningless to the rest of us.
>They look at the black boxes and immediately see what they can do. My point
>here is very simple. It is that the experiential aspects get folded into the
>abstract signs so that we carry them around as ³tacit knowledge² without
>having to think about it or even be aware of it. This is what knowing is.
>
>
>If the term "reduction" is used to refer to this process, it is really only
>half right. The OED says the term refers to "the practice of describing a
>phenomenon (particularly one involving human thought and action) in terms of
>an apparently more basicı or primitiveı phenomenon." But what is being
>done is the opposite, we are given an abstraction but we imagine something
>concrete and experiential, and that is what makes it meaningful.
>
>I am especially concerned because of the association of terms such as
>reduction and abstraction with notions such as the essence-appearance
>distinction, i.e. that the abstractions or reductions are essential while
>the concrete appearances are transient. For a designer this distinction
>collapses. By the same token the term ³example² is misleading in this
>context, because it folds the concrete experiential outcomes into the
>abstraction. It reminds me of a governmental official who said that people
>were "opting out" of medical insurance plans, when it turned out that
>membership in the plans was costing them almost their entire incomes.
>
>Scientists operate with some very extensive webs of theories that enable
>them to make reliable mappings between the halves, so they can get away with
>abstractions.
>
>Without such a web of knowledge, the use of abstraction alone carries with
>it the danger of outsmarting oneıs self. Abstractions wonıt tell us when
>they are wrong. I write ³New York is west of Boston, Chicago is west of New
>York, and Boston is west of Chicago.² But I cannot draw it, at least not
>without making a cylinder of some sort. The rules of drawing are the rules
>of geometry in the experiential world. The rules of language and logic are
>not the same.
>
>
>We have no such web of theory, at least in communication design. In C.D., we
>are at the very beginning of building theory, and that process is very much
>involved in trying to figure out what abstractions make sense to use with
>reference to the activities we are trying to understand. It is the
>abstractions themselves that we have to examine and question by virtue of
>how they play out. This is different from the notion of ³examples² in
>science because by and large we know what they are examples of; in
>communication design, we do not. C.D. is still often taught by examples
>(slides of great work) because we so lack taxonomies for principled
>discussion.
>
>
>In terms of theory building, I can go into details if needed, but, believe
>me, when you start to look at communication and knowing, the things you find
>out about it look as different from common sense as the earth being round
>rather than flat. For example, we think of communication as information
>passing letıs say from teacher to student. But we know that the student can
>parrot the information back without understanding it. Eventually, we come to
>something like the conclusion that at least in such cases as learning, the
>communicative content is not what is said but what is not said. It is what
>is left out by the sender and must be ³induced² in or created by the
>receiver to make what was sent intelligible. Even worse, this aspect of
>communication often takes place intuitively, subliminally, without either
>one being able to articulate what was learned. The world is stranger than
>imagination. In short, theory building is critical. It is liable to be
>tricky, subtle and dependent on creative speculation which alternates
>between operational and conceptual.
>
>
>I also donıt think that ³science² is an appropriate model for at least my
>kind of design. The idea that we can be external observers of ourselves and
>each other is simply not credible to me. Moreover, unlike rocks, we do learn
>and we are in the process of transforming ourselves. This does not mean we
>should adopt the model of humanities which are avowedly interested primarily
>in the metaphors that can be spun, however meaningful, or that we can revert
>to pastoral models of design in the days when science and art were the same.
>Modern requirements are far to demanding of precision for such qualitative
>approaches.
>
>I also donıt think that everyoneıs work has to be grounded. Well developed
>fields have varieties of theories, some high level, i.e. general or abstract
>while others are low level operational, local, and highly predictive. They
>support each other. Wilard Quine, Hilary Putnam (Representation and Reason),
>and others speak of the ³holism² of knowledge, e.g. I can be confident that
>I know what a lawnmower is without knowing all about it, because there are
>others who know about what I donıt.
>
>
>I think that there are ways that we can be highly reasoned about our work.
>We can ³know² and understand, and be objective about ourselves, but these
>ways are different from science epistemologically ontologically and
>methodologically.
>
>More than anything else, we need a broader range of theories and theoretical
>approaches to research in and for design (or communication design). We need
>to be entrepreneurial about research. If we stick to the tried and true
>methods and ideas, we confine ourselves to current limitations and errors.
>Any theory by itself is a fragment. Thee more theory we have, the more will
>theory building be practicable. I think the solution to this problem is time
>and much more of what is being done, with the limitations but mindful of
>them.
>
>For here,given the paucity of theory and research, I merely argue that we
>have to be mindful of the limitations of abstractions, just as we are of
>other approaches, and that we have to try extra hard, as it were to find
>ways to operationally specify and experiment with those theories IN DESIGN
>CONTEXTS to substantiate, develop, customize, and enrich them.
>
>
>Finally, I say that I am speaking of communication design. I have tried to
>keep abreast of discussions in Product design, planning and other design
>fields. I sense some of the same quandary in the PHD list. You know if the
>shoe fits.
>
>I've gone on too long.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Peter Storkerson
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>On 10/2/02 11:44 AM, "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I don't see any problem with abstractions. Science is the art of
> > abstraction. If it is not abstraction, it is not science.
> >
> > The science community communicates faster through abstractions. They can do
> > that because they know the examples beyond the abstractions. The
> > abstractions are actually concepts that are negotiated in a long process
> > and the examples were assimilated in that process. At one point of time,
> > after the members of the community acquire similar background, they can
> > operate only with the abstractions and they do not meed any more the
> > examples. The problems arises when members from one community enter
> > another community. And the exhistance of such a problem indicates that
> > there is a multicommunal aggregate. Some of the scholars might have
> > experienced it when they move from one paradigmatic community to another.
> > They can not understand each other and need examples to construe the
> > meaning of the concepts used in the discourse. I have experienced this many
> > times. Even in one and the same paradigm, there are regional/cultural
> > differences and when scholars migrate they experience that pretty clearly.
> >
> > As far as reductionism in science, it is part of the game. In some
> > paradigms it is more, in others less. Even in the most holistic paradigms
> > there is a lot of reductionism. It is true that most of the designers are
> > exposed mostly to reductionist science -- however, they are not to be
> > blamed for that. The guilty party are the scientists who hold to paradigms
> > like positivism and teach courses or write books for designers.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Lubomir
> >
> >
> > At 07:27 PM 10/2/2002 +1000, davidsless wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues
> >>
> >> I continue to reel in irritation at the endless spiral of abstraction.
> >> Perhaps I have some kind of allergy! (At least I am comforted by the fact
> >> that a few others on this list suffer from the same irritation. Thank you
> >> for your kind supporting words. Perhaps we should set up an abstraction
> >> allergy support group. We are obviously victims of a serious chronic
> >> condition.)
> >>
> >> On this occasion I am dismayed by the endless strings of generalisations
> >> WITHOUT A SINGLE COCRETE EXAMPLE OR CASE. Most of the time, I just ignore
> >> it. But every now and then, I cannot. Some recent comments by John
> Broadbent
> >> just crossed the line once too often.
> >>
> >> John, I'm not singling you out for any personal reason, there is clearly a
> >> community of scholars on this list who seem to thrive on this type of
> stuff
> >> and you just happen to be the one that finally prompted me to say
> something.
> >>
> >> I quote from your recent comments?
> >>> most design professions have only known an intellectual world
> >>> dominated by reductionist science.
> >> Can you please list them and give concrete examples? Could you also
> tell us
> >> which are the 'minority' non-reductionists, also with examples. You see, I
> >> can point specifically at both tendencies in the areas of design I
> work in.
> >> For example, research conducted by Miles Tinker on legibility of print in
> >> the 1960s was highly reductionist. But many practicing designers and
> >> researchers of the time took a much more holistic view of legibility and
> >> roundly criticised Tinker's work for being reductionist. Today, the
> >> mainstream of information designers would probably claim to be working
> >> 'holistically'. As a member of that community I don't feel I am part of an
> >> 'intellectual world dominated by reductionist science'. I cannot speak
> about
> >> architecture, industrial design etc, but during my research in the
> 1960s and
> >> 70s into the history of design and design methods I came across many
> >> examples--intellectual and practical-- that were not reductionist. A
> quote I
> >> often use, because it was one of my early sources of inspiration came from
> >> Moholy Nagy writing in the late 1930s:
> >> --------
> >> Design has many connotations. It is the organisation of materials and
> >> processes in the most productive, economic way, in a harmonious
> balance
> >> of all elements necessary for a certain function. It is not a
> matter of
> >> facade, of mere external appearance; rather it is the essence of
> >> products and institutions, penetrating and comprehensive.
> Designing is a
> >> complex and intricate task. It is the integration of technological,
> >> social and economic requirements, biological necessities, and the
> >> psychophysical effects of materials, shape, colour, volume, and space:
> >> thinking in relationships (Moholy-Nagy 1938).
> >> --------
> >> Is this a view that only knows 'an intellectual world dominated by
> >> reductionist science'? I think not. Yet this is a view from one of
> founders
> >> of contemporary design. One could mention others like Christopher
> Alexander,
> >> Papanek etc. It would be helpful to those of us who have a limited
> tolerance
> >> for abstraction, if those of you who love the stuff gave us concrete
> >> examples so that we can understand what you are talking about. I would ask
> >> the same of any PhD student I was supervising.
> >>
> >> And again:
> >>> Yet many in the design community seem strangely unaware of
> >>> the 'sciences of complexity', or unwilling to engage with them in any
> >>> real sense.
> >> Who are these 'many' 'strangely unaware' people in our community?
> >>
> >> I could go on, but life is short.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> --
> >> Professor David Sless
> >> BA MSc FRSA
> >> Co-Chair Information Design Association
> >> Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
> >> Director
> >> Communication Research Institute of Australia
> >> ** helping people communicate with people **
> >>
> >> PO Box 398 Hawker
> >> ACT 2614 Australia
> >>
> >> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> >>
> >> phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
> >> fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
> >> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
>
>----
>Peter Storkerson M.F.A. Ph.D.
>Communication Cognition
>http://home.tiac.net/~pstork
>[log in to unmask]
|