JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  May 2014

PHD-DESIGN May 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

SV: Re: Styles of Debate

From:

Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 10 May 2014 11:24:18 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

Terry,Thanks for your kind response to my rather over-enthusiastic post :-) . Will have to get back to this later. Am on the run for guests and wine and a nice saturday here.
All the best
Birger

Sendt from my mobile.


---- Terence Love skrev ----

Dear Birger,
 My apologies for mis-typing  your name. I know you are called Birger.
 I had understood you were asking for much more than  simple descriptions of
examples. I had already offered pointers and uploaded two publications with
examples as teaching papers to academia.com - both of which are clearly
extensible into other design fields. I'd also described practical examples
within the posts to phd-design.
where e.g. proportional maths can  apply in design disciplines that do not
conventionally use maths - most of this occurred under the thread  '10,000
hours. . .'
I had thought you were asking much more than you say you are. Hence my
comment.
I'll upload onto the web some examples of the use of simple maths  in visual
design fields.

I understand your reference to parametric design and the maths of it. For
areas of design that are not using maths, I was suggesting something rather
simpler.
By the way, I have visited your site  (http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net/
) several times and found it useful and interesting. I found your
classification of systemic relations particularly valuable. You know I've a
strong interest in systems thinking in design.  We differ in that I feel
there's a limit to how far visual design methods will work in complex
systems and then claim necessary to use mathematical approaches.  I
understand you disagree.

Birger, in asking me to present cases,  you seem to forget I no longer work
in universities with students generally. I've a supervisory role with three
great PhD students but that's not the same as being engaged as you are deep
in the university system. I also occasionally work on university research
projects. This means  I have to write any cases up myself! I'll write some
outlines up and post them to a website.

Best wishes,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Birger Sevaldson
Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2014 4:26 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: RE: Styles of Debate

Dear Terry
First: my name is Birger, not Berger.
I feel I am going to regret this but I can't help at least give it a last
shot. I tend to agree with Ken that your style of argumentation is slippery
and avoiding responding in ways that would help to clarify what you mean and
bring this mystified debate forward.
You wrote:

< Berger's post was of the order of 'Prove everything beyond reasonable
doubt in every bit of detail, and only then should people start thinking
about what is proposed.>

This is very upsetting and provoking!

I did NOT ask for proof of everything beyond reasonable doubt, and I am very
far from ideas that people should start thinking only when everything is
proven. In contrary I think the argumentation and debate is central in
generating evidence. But at a certain point we need to demonstrate and point
at cases to bring the discussion further on. You had your ample time to
argue without pointing at any evidence, cases, examples or tests. I was only
asking for SOME examples that could ground the discussion and support your
claims, and you produce nothing.

I was asking you first to bring up just ONE case that supports your claims
and in the latest email to show us your cases and your body of work that
supports your claims. If your claim is not produced out of thin air this
should be easy. I ask you for this so that we can see what you mean and that
you can demonstrate in cases what you are talking about. So far I simply
don't understand you. This might be because my lack of mathematic
understanding. But even with a limited understanding of mathematics for me
it would take me half an hour to produce ten examples of projects that show
that some designers did have great use of a fairly advanced knowledge of
mathematics even though this is not my research interest. So this being one
of your favorite concepts it is very puzzling that you are not able to
produce one singular example.

E.g. In the field of parametric architecture insight in mathematics is
needed:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=grasshopper+parametric+architecture&FORM
=HDRSC2

But this does not indicate or validate that ALL designers would be better
off with more maths.
But from this you can deduce that SOME designers benefit from good insight
in mathematics.

I would never dare to say math is beneficial for ALL designers. Such a claim
is easy to falsify. Somebody has just to find one designer who does great
work without maths and the claim would be proven wrong.

That's maybe where your problem is: that you cannot even slightly underpin
your claim that all designers need math. Since you can't prove this claim
and this claims nature is a falsifiable hypotheses and I can think of
thousands of designers who do very well without math I regard this claim as
falsified.

I am in a similar position as you. I claim that advanced visualization and
visual thinking is more needed in design. I have proposed a particular
approach to such visualizations. I call these visualizations Giga-maps. I
could show you 50+ cases from teaching and research and 20 + cases from
business (but there are some time issues and confidentiality issues with the
business cases. We are working currently to document these emerging
practices in the Oslo area). These cases indicate that designers are better
off with visualization on this level. It does not prove it beyond any doubt.
It is probably impossible or at least immensely difficult to prove it beyond
any doubt. The reason for this is because these are unique design projects
that are solved by unique designers escaping comparative studies. Also it is
nearly impossible to create large studies that are based on statistics. I
understand these problems of evidence in design research, as I have stated
frequently in earlier posts and hence I asked you not for evidence beyond
any doubt but for validation by pointing us to some cases.
Despite the problems with evidence the cases demonstrate what I mean with
Giga-mapping and it validates the claim that for some designers it is
beneficial based on their reporting and responses to the approach. Then I
would have to reflect upon these cases and write down and publish my
arguments. Then people can discuss it and criticize it and it becomes clear
what kind of visualizations and techniques I am talking about and on what
kind of literature and practice I base my argument on. This is the type of
validation I am asking for and it's the most useful to my mind in design
research. It should be very easy and not time consuming at all for you to at
least show us with one case what you are talking about.

Here some of the source material www.systemsorienteddesign.net<http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net>

I was only asking you to show us the experience you base your claim on.
Start with showing us how you use mathematics in your book illustrations.

Then: It is very provoking to read you last sentence:
<snip> If the suggestions seem interesting,  then it's the role of the
reader to do the work to explore the ideas, rather than asking me to create
teaching material to do it for them!<snip>

You have very loudly presented us for very strong claims. There is nothing
suggestive about your way of presenting your arguments though you claim them
to be suggestions in your last email. You present them as true but fail to
validate them. It is not unfair to ask for some grounding of these claims.
You refuse this and then you say it's our role to explore it? No thank you
very much! If you want to be taken seriously you have to do your own
homework and demonstrate the validity in you claims. And since it is about
design practice you have to demonstrate it through cases. I am very
bewildered that this is difficult for you. If there is the slightest hold in
your suggestions I would think that you would try it out, practice it
yourself and instruct some students to do so? So there should already be at
least a few examples to show?

Before I see anything close to this I regard your claim for falsified and
without any value and I dismiss the whole discussion for now.


All the best


Birger Sevaldson (PhD, MNIL)
Professor at Institute of Design
Oslo School of Architecture and Design
Norway
Phone (0047) 9118 9544
www.birger-sevaldson.no<http://www.birger-sevaldson.no>
www.systemsorienteddesign.net<http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net>
www.ocean-designresearch.net<http://www.ocean-designresearch.net>


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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager