Hi Ken,
Let's take it from the beginning.
1. If some solution spaces are larger than humans can conceive of, or are
capable of working with in mind,but are capable of being abstractly
identified via maths or computer methods, and,
2. If selections and choices are going to be made from those areas of
solution space that humans can't perceive or address, and
3. If selections for designs can be made from these areas of solution space
that humans can't perceive or address by using mathematical computing
methods but not by humans, then
4. How does your claim work that only humans can choose from solution space?
One option is there is a possibility to resolve this issue by separating
design activity into two kinds of design realms:
SMALL DESIGN - that with a scope of mini-solution space limited to that
perceived by humans and addressable in mind from which humans choose
elements of design solutions. This would fit the picture of design that you
describe.
BIG DESIGN - with the full scope of solution space, but which will involve
the use of mathematics and computing as well as humans to choose items from
it. This would encompass what I described and would also include the picture
of design that you describe.
There's a choice for you. Which would you prefer? How would it change your
theories of design and the role of agency in them?
My answers to the questions to asked at the end of your post (which seem
to have the flavour of 'Piss off, you are disturbing our easy life'), are
possibly much the same as have driven many others who have become involved
in Art and Design and other design realms after an earlier background in
technical design and research. It’s the same sort of reasons that drive the
people in Apple and Adobe, and others (e.g. members of SIGGraph) that are
automating graphic design, or the reasons that drive design researchers and
designers to improve service design outcomes or any other kind of design
activities and outcomes. The reasons are about contributing personal
creative energy to improve design outcomes. Part of it is the awareness (as
Don wrote in his infamous Core 77 blog item on Design Education) that
mathematics, science and more formal technical approaches have a lot to
offer to improve how designing is done and improving design outcomes for
the future for our children and others'.
You place a lot of weight on the formal technical processes of publishing
and those kinds of technologies associated with power plays, status and
exclusion via education institutions. Personally, I prefer informal social
communication as a way of changing things and getting things done. I agree
with Klaus, Jerry and others that informal chat and social communication is
central to making things happen. The place for maths and technology is
often different, it can be spectacularly useful and on the other hand some
of its processes over time sometimes becomes less relevant. The technology
of academic publishing seems to me to be going down that path towards
increasing irrelevance.
My two penneth.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Friday, 16 May 2014 2:31 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN PHD-DESIGN
Subject: Re: Request ŒSon of Rittel Think¹
Dear Terry,
No, I don’t agree that “ANY and EVERY perspective on design that focuses on
design as choosing selections from within a solution space must naturally
assume that design is not a purely human activity, and instead can be
computerised and automated.”
Design involves intention and choice. Only humans and some non-human animals
possess agency, that is, the capacity to intend or to choose.
Jerry Diethelm and Lubomir Popov explained why it is impossible to
computerize and automate all design activities or render them in
quantitative algorithms either in theory or in practice. Posts by M P
Ranjan, Klaus Krippendorff, Don Norman, Charlotte Magnusson, Lars Albinsson,
and Eduardo Corte-Real also shed light on this. There is no need for further
comments on my part.
You have argued here and elsewhere that our paradigms and views make it
impossible to understand the conclusions you hold after decades of research.
This leaves two questions.
(1) Most of us aren’t going to change our ways. Why try to change the minds
of people who are incapable of working with your ideas?
(2) There seem to be communities of research and practice where people share
your paradigm and your views. You inform us that their work is years ahead
our work.
Why aren’t you publishing your advanced quantitative design research in
journals and forums for engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists, and
specialists in artificial intelligence and algorithmic thinking?
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830
462 | Home Page
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<h
ttp://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page
http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
Shanghai, China
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
