Dear Terry,

the proposition that "the cat sat on the mat" says many more things:

(1) there is a world such that
(2) things exist
(3) in time
(4) in space
(5) and they have identity such that
(6) they are the same as themself
(7) they are different from everything else.

hope that helps

anyway - we might add ratiocination if we are talking about logical
reasoning. This would be of more interest to designing if not to design.

cheers

keith

>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 10/15/08 9:08 PM >>>
Dear Klaus, 
 
Thank you for your message. It prompted me to look up the definition of
'reasoning', and to realise that I have been using it differently and in
a
way that may have resulted in confusion. Please accept my apologies.
 
In what I wrote, I should have used the term 'logical reasoning' when I
pointed to weak reasoning.
 
I now realise that the generic term 'reasoning' is used more loosely,
particularly in the Humanities. I see now that aircraft being crashed
into
the World Trade Centre can be considered as reasoning between America
and Al
Qaeda.
 
I meant something different.
 
Take for example the sentence 'The cat sat on the mat.' I meant the kind
of
reasoning that,
 
1. The sentence refers to 2 objects and only 2 objects ('the cat' and
'the
mat')
2. That the sentence describes the relationship between the two objects
as
the activity of 'sitting' (which the cat is doing on the mat) and only
that
activity. 
3. That by implication the cat is above the mat (sitting on).
4. That the sentence does not say anything else (probably the most
important
bit).
 
This is the kind of reasoning that allows us to accurately infer meaning
from sentences. The alternative occurs either by writing sentences that
are
so loose that in effect they say very little or are contradictory, or
that
the interpretation of others' sentences is inaccurate or so loose as to
effectively say little of effective use.
 
I was suggesting that the responses to Axiom 1 didn't follow the kind of
'cat sat on the mat' logical reasoning above. I can now understand your
position that they followed a different sort of reasoning.
 
Best wishes,
 
Terence
 
 

  _____  

From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 10:19 PM
To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
Subject: SV: Axiom indicates weaknesses in theorymaking in design
research


terry,
why do you call the various arguments against you proposition weak
reasoning
or associative?  could it be that your axiom is weak by importing
metaphors
that entail a lot of epistemological baggage, thereby inviting too many
objection, rendering it not an axiom others could accept?
klaus

  _____  

Från: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design genom Terence Love
Skickat: sö 2008-10-12 20:56
Till: [log in to unmask]
Ämne: Axiom indicates weaknesses in theorymaking in design research



Dear Ken, David, Fils, Teena,  Harold, Klaus, Eduardo, Matti, Fils,
Suresh,
and anyone I've missed,

Three weeks ago, I proposed an axiom as  a small part of a  foundation
for
building design theory. The axiom simply stated "ALL design methods are
information gathering methods."

This was intended to make a start addressing two problems of design
research: one epistemic and one cultural.
1. Design research has inadequate foundations for theory making
2. Design theory (and design research in general) has been plagued by
associative thinking instead of reasoning.

The axiom was very specific. Its focus is 'design methods'. It does not
not
address the human activity of 'designing', or creativity, or
understanding,
or research or a host of potentially associatable  design related issues
and
concepts. The axiom simply stated "ALL design methods are information
gathering methods."

The axiom is congruent and coherent  in that it defines both subject and
object as the same type of entity (methods). It is sinThe nature of the statement does not suggest that design methods are
exclusively information gathering methods. For example, they may be also
useful for jogging one's memory, changing one's emotions, a reason for
getting the client to pay a higher fee, a tool for collaboration, or
even
something cool to draw out on the white board to get more status.

In reasoning terms, the test of the axiom is simple and singular. The
axiom
fails if there exists a 'design method' that does not gather information
using a method. So far, no one that has challenged the axiom has gone
this
route.

At this point the axiom stands. It potentially provides one touchpoint
for
starting to build coherent  design theory. Hopefully others will start
to
identify other singular foundaitons.

The second issue is that of the problem of associative thinking in
design
research.

Reasoning and the analytical thinking of research are radically
different to
th eassociattive thinking of design. This difference was identified a
long
time ago. For example it appears in the writings associated with the
philosopher Pythagoras around the 6th century BC.

Associative thinking is a psychological foundation of design activity. 
When
a designer thinks of something (e.g. a characteristic of a problem or a
seed
for a design) then other associated thoughts come to mind.

A cultural problem of the design research field is that many of us are
also
designers and thus also have the mental habits of designers, and this
results in weak or reasoning in the realm of theory making. Look  at the
elements of the discourse following the axiom proposal:

1. I propose a simple axiom that  relates two categories: 'design
methods'
and  'information gathering methods'
2. Several people associatively connected  'design methods' to 'design',
and
'design' and 'information' to the old debates from the 70s about whether
it
is good to have an informatic perspective on design. Very little of this
has
anything to do with arguing for or aginst the validity of the axiom. The
most targetted challenge is whether information is a thing or a process
(as
part of a debate as to whether it exists outside or inside humans).
3. Klaus and Eduardo associatively debate 'what is done after something
is
gathered'
4. There is an associative detour via 'organs' and definitions and
formal
language.
5. Klaus, Matti, Teena and Fils come in on target on the information
thing/process issue
6. Clive associatively and irrelevantly claims that understanding is
central
rather than information. This is fallacious  diversion - though it might
make the basis of an alternative axiom.
7. David points to the dodginess of understanding as a concept.
8. Harold associatively draws in 'action' and makes a bridge to problems
of
design research and design scholarship
9. Ken associatively connects this to a discussion about reducing
research
to information.

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FRDS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Founder member Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research
Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________