On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jerry Diethelm wrote:
> That Simon
> thought about designing through a scientific outlook that took its
> vocabulary for granted needn’t diminish our appreciation today of his basic
> insights or hinder their further accommodation and development in design
> thinking.
There has been no clear approach to how science and design can be understood within the same framework, until now.
In A Theory of Design Thinking I will be pointing out that science and design share the same modes of thought, but use them for different purposes. Science to validate things that exist and design to formulate what does not yet exist.
No one has clearly understood the intent of design better than Simon. Newell also was also ahead of the game when he wrote "Unified Theories of Cognition" (The 1987 William James Lectures at Harvard). They both were wrapped in their own times but we all are. It is their vision that should inspire us. Our petty attempt to define design in terms of specialized professional competence is not anywhere near their level of discourse.
Or so I believe,
Chuck
PS: Victor, As a historian you might want to read this.
Newell, Allen, 1990, Unified Theories of Cognition,( First Harvard University Press Edition 1994),Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|