Terry,
But you addressed my post as if I did attack you. I am attacking confusions, epistemological absurdities, directions that go nowhere, and too narrow perspectives, but not the personalities of writers most of them I never met.
Klaus
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Klaus,
> Thanks for your message.
> No, your post was not a personal attack, or I didn't feel it that way.
> Thanks for asking.
> Best wishes,
> Terence
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff
> Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016 1:36 AM
> To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: Definitions
>
> Why, terry,
> Du you say:
> " Usually, I avoid responding to posts that are mostly ad hominem attack rather than arguing against the theoretical position presented"
> Do you feel attacked when I wrote a response to you and ken?
> Klaus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Definitions
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> Dear Ken and Klaus,
>
> We seem to be at cross purposes.
>
> I post very specifically about one aspect of definitions and why the definitions of design fail. You and Klaus persistently respond by not addressing what I post but instead responding as if I'd posted something else.
>
> I will reply about the definitions issues in three posts because in view of the above there are three separate issues to address.
>
> The critique of the definitions of Simon and Merriam Webster will be one of them. Usually, I avoid responding to posts that are mostly ad hominem attack rather than arguing against the theoretical position presented. In this case, it makes sense to answer your question about why the definitions of Simon and Merriam Webster are inadequate in the hope of finding a way to present to you the definitions issues which from my point of view you seem to be avoiding.
>
> Yours bemusedly,
> Terence
>
> ---
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> [log in to unmask]
> www.loveservices.com.au
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
> Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 12:50 AM
> To: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: Definitions
>
> Dear Terry,
>
> Your latest post on ¡°definitions¡± fits together with your earlier comment on the New York Times article by Robert Frodeman and Adam Briggle. Every time you post, you assure us that if only we will begin to define design as a noun, this will straighten out some of the major theoretical difficulties in our field.
>
> This begins to remind me of Cato the Elder. No matter what the topic of any debate in the Roman Senate, Cato ended every speech on every topic with the phrase, ¡°Delenda est Cartago!¡± ¡ª ¡°Carthage must be destroyed.¡±
>
> No matter what the issue, it seems that you propose a ¡°noun version of the definition of design¡± as the foundation of a major new design theory that will lead to ¡°usable concepts and theories that are testable and align with the theories of other disciplines.¡±
>
> As you note, ¡°the alternative is to do the hard work and define practically usable concepts and theories.¡± Then you¡¯ve got to publish them. So far, you haven¡¯t even presented the actual critique of the two specifically sourced definitions that I offered you in response to your request. I gave you two definitions. Rather than carefully and explicitly demonstrate why they did not function effectively, you simply said, ¡°Nope.¡± Then you said, ¡°Got to add them to the list.¡± Except, as you admitted earlier, there is no list.
>
> For the reasons I stated earlier, I prefer not to rejoin this debate. What might lure me back would be for you to post the answer you offered if I were to provide the definitions. I provided Simon and Merriam-Webster, with full sources and proper referencing.
>
> Of course, there is still the issue of publishing the theoretical breakthroughs that follow if only we will define design as a noun. But publishing the theories you claim will follow takes work.
>
> Cato the Elder proclaimed, ¡°Carthage must be destroyed.¡±
>
> Terry Love wrote, ¡°The alternative is to do the hard work ¡¡±
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | Éè¼Æ She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
>
> ¡ª
>
> Terry Love wrote:
>
> ¡ªsnip¡ª
>
> The alternative is to do the hard work and define practically usable concepts and theories that are testable and align with the theories of other disciplines.
>
> As an aside and hint, as I've written before... the noun version of the definition of design does this for design researchers¡ .
>
> ¡ªsnip¡ª
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
