Terry, I’m choosing to leave this dialog in the color string because that is the context of whatever theory we are seeking.
In my world, and in other situations where there are many possible outcomes rather than narrowly constrained ones, a theory does not have to be predictive. It must be a useful, meaningful, and appropriate construct through which relevant information can be structured and transformed to accomplish a purpose regarding the circumstances of interest or concern. At some point in its development and use, after enough examples of its use exist, such a theory can become predictive of the behavior and circumstances that produced similar outcomes in similar circumstances. It may also enable discovery of similar outcomes in different circumstances or for different purposes. American Philosopher Daniel Dennett’s conception of Intentional Stances, claims predictive capabilities but I don’t have enough knowledge of his reasoning to describe it here. I imagine it is predictive of failure or success in achieving an objective under certain conditions, including after professional expertise has become operative. Prediction of what change a particular design will bring to the world defies the capacity to adequately isolate the “world" being changed. Happily, scientific prediction is not the only game in town. Many patterns of thought, even habits of mind, are predictive of results. Otherwise there would be no expertise.
Or, so I think
Chuck
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> I'm unclear how what you wrote affects the ability or otherwise of theories to predict what changes in the world will result from the introduction of a particular design.
>
> Please could you say more.
>
> Warm regards,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of CHARLES BURNETTE
> Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2016 10:23 PM
> To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: Assume fixed number of colours in design?
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> In my view, interpretations are valid formulations due to their backgound, context, and intention. A Theory of Design Thinking suggests that an expression of any focal subject depends on the context in which it was formulated, the interpretation arising from the thinker's background, and the needs and desires that focus the expression. The theory also suggests that the choice of identifier for a color, or anything else, gives a functional boundary to the neural network in the brain sufficient to establish the expression as an object of thought that can be memorialized, recalled, adapted, and applied in subsequent thought, either subconsciously with a malleable boundary, or consciously through linguistic devices with less potential ambiguity. The potential ambiguity is thought to reside in the salience of different neuron groups in the context of the neural net. This would give subconscious imagination a greater range and linguistic definition greater precision. Just as the Color Council seeks to identify a trending color and paint manufacturer's seek a better understanding of the colors of their paint any identifier of utility in subsequent thought needs to be considered in terms of its circumstances of use, background influences and the thinkers intent. So hereTerry, is some design theory on terms you, Eduardo, Gunnar and others might accept.
>
> Or, so I hope you will,
>
> Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|