Hello!

Terry defines designing as that which results in designs, and
defines a design as a specification for making or doing
something.

A maker or do-er can place anything in the role of a
specification of what he or she makes or does; anything that
is stable and observable for long enough to complete the
making or doing, where completeness is decided here by the
maker or do-er.

Or, a maker or do-er can place in the role of a specification
of what he or she makes or does, a description of anything
that he or she or someone else has been able to observe for
long enough so that a description may be formed of it.

There's not much in the world, ne, in the Universe that could
not be placed in one of these specification roles.  Not dark
matter and dark energy, perhaps, but just about anything else
could be.

So, according to Terry's definition of a design, almost
everything is a design, but not the result of some designing.
Terry does not say that!

So, Terry's definition of designing as that which results in a
design, doesn't help us pick out designs in what we can find
in the observable universe.  It can't distinguish designs made
by designing and designs not made by designing.  What kind of
definition of designing is it, if it can't distinguish what is
designed and what is not?  To paraphrase the Cat talking of
the Duck in Peter and the Wolf.

Of course, many things, when placed in the role of a
specification of something to make or do, will not serve well
as a good specification, so who knows what we'll get or what
will happen.  But Terry doesn't include in his definition of a
design that it needs to be a good specification of something
to make or do.  He says nothing about these specifications for
making or doing needing to be complete enough, precise enough,
accurate enough, understandable enough, nor that they need to
come along with a sufficient explanations for how they are
designs for whoever asked for them.

I just wonder what kind of theory of designing Terry will give
us, based upon his definitions of a design and designing.  It
won't be a theory that can tell us about good or bad
designing, nor much else about real designing.  A theory of
designing built upon Terry's definitions will say that
anything I do that results in something that is placed in a
specification role by a maker or do-er, is designing.

But there's a lack of clarity in Terry's definition of a
design.  Yes, I'm sorry, but Terry has not been quite clear
enough.  Yikes!  We need Terry to say if a design is something
that CAN be used as a specification, or only something that IS
used as a specification, for making or doing something?

If it is the former, then anything I do, that results in
anything that stays around long enough for it to placed in a
specification role by a maker or do-er, is, according to
Terry's theory, some designing: anything I do!  That includes
using something as a specification of something to make or do.

So, designing is designing is designing is designing is ...
you get what I'm saying.  But do you get what this says about
designing?  I don't.

If it is the latter, then only if what results from what I do,
is used by a maker or do-er as a specification for making or
doing something, does what I did become designing.  If no
maker or do-er ever does this, I didn't do any designing.  If
any maker or do-er ever does do this, then what I did becomes
some designing, but you may well have to wait for the future
to know this.

So, designing is may be what I'm doing now, but we'll need to
wait and see.  What does this say about designing?  I've no
idea.

Huh!  I knew that all this "let's start with some definitions"
was a bad idea.  It's been known to be bad for good research
for ages.  It's just that Terry does so much marketing of the
idea that this is a good way to do design research, I couldn't
stop myself.  His advertisements for it have appear many many
times on this channel, so it became too hard to ignore,
despite what my PhD supervisor kept telling me.

Now I might not get my new PhD--the one I've been working on
to replace my old one that's apparently worn out now.

Can someone please send me the contact details of Michael Moss
at the NYT? I think this requires some responsible journalism.
It shouldn't be allowed.

-- Tim


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------