Ken,
Did you actually take the time to understand what Terry was saying? As your
background is closer to the humanities than engineering I would expect not!
What Terry is describing is a grand-narrative based on neo-classical
essentialist materialism and is as valid as any other paradigm. You might
have your version of the truth, but just because you do that does not make
you right and Terry wrong!
Jonathan Bishop
BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon, LLM, MIET, MIEEE, FRSA, FRAI, FBCS, CITP
On 10 March 2014 02:26, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Terry,
>
> While I accept your definition of theory as a statement of your beliefs, I
> do not accept this as a description of all theories in all fields.
>
> This is the kind of thing I'd want to see argued well with some kind of
> demonstration linked to a better literature than Wikipedia articles.
> Without a better case, I don't see why anyone should accept your
> description of theory as comprehensive. I certainly can't see why those who
> describe theories in other forms than those you proclaim constitute
> sub-sets of this grand and total description.
>
> As I've said before about other issues, I'd like to see you publish this
> in the peer-reviewed literature. For that matter, I'd like to see you do
> something you have not yet done: publish a theory of design that "can be
> wholly and exactly represented as mathematical functions."
>
> You write about design as though ALL design theory can be turned into
> quantitative and exact mathematical functions. If this is true of ALL
> design theory, it encompasses ALL design activities. I believe this cannot
> be done. While I believe that this cannot be done, I remain open to a
> demonstration.
>
> It is for you to provide the demonstration. Until then, we are arguing
> about your belief that a theory of design that "can be wholly and exactly
> represented as mathematical functions" and my belief that this is a
> grandiose but mistaken notion.
>
> Nigel Cross (1995: 3) states that the best examples of design research
> are: purposive, inquisitive, informed, methodical, and communicable. This
> requires articulation and shared knowledge within and across the field.
> This, again, requires articulate communication of explicit knowledge.
>
> Nigel (Cross 1995:3) defines these terms clearly:
>
> "Purposive - based on identification of an issue or problem worthy and
> capable of investigation; Inquisitive - seeking to acquire new knowledge;
> Informed - conducted from an awareness of previous, related research;
> Methodical - planned and carried out in an efficient and disciplined
> manner; Communicable - generating and reporting results which are testable
> and accessible by others."
>
> While your argument for a rigorous mathematical design theory is "an issue
> or problem worthy and capable of investigation," you haven't actually done
> the investigation or demonstrated that this approach to design theory is
> possible.
>
> You have written numerous posts and papers proclaiming your belief in the
> possibility of such a theory. It remains for you to do the work and publish
> the results.
>
> Elsewhere, speaking of similar claims for kinds of practice-based research
> that no one actually seems to publish, Nigel (Cross 1999: unpaged) wrote,
> ". . . Less of the special pleading and more of the valid, demonstrable
> research output might help."
>
> You have long called for design research based on design theory that is
> "wholly and exactly represented as mathematical functions."
>
> I wait to see this work published in a form that others can access and
> test.
>
> Until it is published, I argue that the case for such research is simply a
> statement of belief, a case of "... special pleading [rather than] valid,
> demonstrable research output ..."
>
> You state that you have been "pussy-footing around trying to put things
> into ways I've felt might align with the discourse of this list."
>
> I am asking you to demonstrate that the approach for which you is
> possible. You seem to claim that an approach to design research that is not
> mathematically explicit is mistaken, lacking in rigor, and unable to
> produce valid theory. I won't collect the many statements you've made that
> tend toward this, so these may not be your exact words.
>
> Nevertheless, since nearly no work in design research fills the criteria
> stated in your post (below), it is clear that there are no "good" theories
> in design as you define "good" theory.
>
> Without arguing that all representations of design are equally valid, I
> state that your representation of a possible design theory does not work
> and cannot work. If it can, you are obliged to show the rest of us that
> this is so with a valid demonstration.
>
> Richard Feynman once condensed the scientific method into a one-minute
> lecture:
>
>
> http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/
>
> He said, "In general, we look for a new law by the following process:
> First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see
> what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare
> the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience,
> compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees
> with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to
> science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
> does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what
> his name is -- if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."
>
> In my view you have made a beautiful guess about what design theory ought
> to be, and design theory might indeed work as your guess says it should if
> design were a field like physics. Design is not a field like physics.
>
> What is as true of design as it is of physics is the need to show that
> something works through experiment or experience. If you cannot demonstrate
> through an experiment that design theory does work like this, in each and
> every instance, your guess is wrong. So far, though, I'm arguing that the
> case is far worse - it's not a situation in which you have published
> numerous significant examples leaving it to the rest of us to demonstrate a
> counter-example that disproves your argument for ALL theory with respect to
> design.
>
> So far, you have yet to publish even a few positive examples that others
> can access and test.
>
> So far, we're arguing between two beliefs.
>
> You seem to believe in a kind of design theory that is "wholly and exactly
> represented as mathematical functions."
> You argue that such a theory is possible and necessary in all design
> research.
>
> I believe that such a theory is impossible in all design research, and
> unlikely for most. I further believe that no one has yet done research of
> this kind in general design research, including you. I acknowledge that
> there may be cases of such research in engineering - but these cases
> represent engineering problems and not the design problems that the
> engineering solutions address.
>
> The best way to demonstrate that your belief is correct is to publish
> examples of such a design theory, and to publish examples of research based
> on such a theory that others can access and test.
>
> Until you do so, I have no reason to change my belief that an approach to
> design research "wholly and exactly represented as mathematical functions"
> is impossible.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
> Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University
> email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private
> email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61
> 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedmanAbout Me Page
> http://about.me/ken_friedman
>
> Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
> Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James
> Cook University | Townsville, Australia
>
> --
>
> References
>
> Cross. Nigel. 1995. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995, pp.
> 2-3.
>
> Cross. Nigel. 1999. "Subject: Re: Research into, for and through designs."
> DRS. Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:43:18 +0000.
>
> --
>
> Terry Love wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> 1. All theories (any discipline) can be wholly and exactly represented as
> mathematical functions* (this is the set of ALL theories regardless of
> valid, useful or not) The relevant mathematical functions are typically
> found in complex non-linear multivariable multidimensional spaces**
>
> 2. There are significant benefits in terms of validity and usefulness if
> theories are in the set represented by *continuous* *** *well-behaved* ****
> mathematical function.
>
> 3. If a theory cannot be represented by a well-behaved continuous
> mathematical function, this is an indication that the phenomena being
> theorised about needs representing in a different theoretical manner
> typically by more than one theory.
>
> 4. A simple test for whether a theory is represented by a well-behaved
> mathematical function (and hence is a 'good' theory) is whether the
> phenomena and the mathematical theories are free from discontinuities*****
> or singularities******.
>
> 5. The existence of discontinuities and singularities in the mathematical
> space field ******* that represents a theory indicates the need to
> represent phenomena on each side of the discontinuity or at the point of
> the singularity differently. That is, it indicates that what was previously
> one theory actually requires several theories of which the minimum number
> is (n+m+1) where n is the number of discontinuities and m is the number of
> singularities.
>
> 6. The above applies to a single characteristic of a phenomenon. Where
> discontinuities and singularities occur at the same point in respect to
> multiple characteristics of the same phenomenon this indicates the presence
> of (n+m+1) different phenomena and the need for (n+m+1) different vector
> space fields (bodies of theory) to describe them).
>
> Conceptual analysis, the work of Foucault and other theorists in realms of
> sociology, communications and design theory can each be seen as a sub-sets
> of the above.
>
> --snip--
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
