Dear Terry,
On 16/03/2016, 1:02 AM, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design on behalf of Terence Love"
<[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>My daughter has two cats Shapey (white) and Changey (tortoiseshell). Both
>are wild cats and not fully tamed and both hunt mice. Given an ambiguous
>mouse hunting situation (sight of mouse but perhaps too far away) Changey
>will wait, get bored, wander off, or carefully move to hunting the mouse.
>Closure of the decision to conduct hunting activity is variable. In
>contrast, for Shapey, commitment is immediate, apparently hardwired, and
>100%. Closure of the decision to hunt for Shapey is obviously different.
>Is this difference in closure of decision-making processes to act the
>result of long hours of cat conversation or something else? What
>implications does that have for a linguistic explanation of closure in
>use of different logics?
>
>I suggest how we decide to act to use the outcomes of logic (of whatever
>type) is an interesting issue for design research as it reinterprets what
>the different types of logic mean to us as humans (as distinct from what
>they mean in our thoughts and conversations) and potentially reshapes a
>lot of the theory around design thinking .
>
>None of the above, however, makes abduction equivalent to deduction.
>
>Best wishes,
>Terence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|