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
|
