Dear All,

It seems to me that this specific thread is interesting but somewhat ill informed. A definition can only partly exclude. 

This is a formal definition of what a definition is in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary at Britannica Online:

1 : an act of determining or settling the limits
2 a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or of a sign or symbol
b : the action or process of defining
3 a : the action or the power of making definite and clear
b : the state of being clear <the definition of the hills>

The 10th edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary has an additional useful definition. It states that a definition is “ 2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something.”  (Merriam-Webster. 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc: 303). 

But the first definition in Merriam-Webster’s — “an act of definition” — uses the word as a participle of the transitive verb “define”. Here is what it means “to define”:  

de*finetransitive verb\di-ˈfīn\
1 a : to fix or mark the limits of <the boundary was clearly defined>
b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <your argument is not sufficiently defined>
2 a : to determine the essential qualities of <define the concept of loyalty>
b : to discover and set forth the meaning of <define a word>
c : characterize <https://academic-eb-com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/levels/collegiate/search/dictionary?query=characterize>,  distinguish <https://academic-eb-com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/levels/collegiate/search/dictionary?query=distinguish> <defined himself as a great writer>
d : to specify (as a programming task) for a computer to use <define a procedure>


One form of the act of defining involves setting boundaries — excluding as well as including.

But a definition itself — not “the act of definition” but “a definition” — states meaning. It expresses the essential nature of something.

There is only so much one can reasonably do in a definition. Given the world of actions or objects that one might exclude, excluding is an endless task.

Excluding is a demarcation problem. Demarcation, rather than definition, includes and excludes. In philosophy, for example, the demarcation problem specially focuses on distinctions between science and pseudo-science. The philosophy literature has dedicated many articles and books to the demarcation problem, particularly the philosophy of science. The demarcation problem is well developed in that field, but it also occurs in many fields where people attempt to determine what to exclude and what to include in definitions of the field.

To get a sense of the issues involved in demarcation for other fields, just use Google Scholar for the term “demarcation problem”. You can also search for “demarcation”, “boundary demarcation”, and “demarcation criteria”. Simply spending an hour or two reading the results screen and browsing interesting articles will shed rich light on this question. 

The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy has a fine article on “Philosophy Science and Pseudo-Science” that demonstrates the care required in understanding demarcation. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/>

For that matter, the article on “Definitions” offers useful consideration on the issues involved in defining things.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/ <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/>

Terry Love proposed that a formal review of definitions requires at least four kinds of 

—snip—

[1] Textual analysis (who wrote what, where and when)
[2] Semantic analysis (the meanings and implications of the texts)
[3] Conceptual analysis (the explicit and implicit unique and unambiguous concepts and their boundaries found in the above textual and semantic analyses)
[4] Meta-theoretical analysis (how  the texts, meanings and concepts found in the literature relate to and are justified by different theories across design fields and, more importantly, other fields).

—snip—

While the proposal for analysis partly conflates definition with demarcation, the general steps in Terry’s outline seem reasonable. No one has yet published this kind of review. I’ve had some off-list conversation with Terry on this. Terry’s own review was not the kind of formal review he describes here, and I’d argue that Terry’s proposal for the “only one exclusively defining feature” of design doesn’t follow from a formal review of definitions of design.

For me, the problem of this conversation is simple: both Terry and Richard Herriott have been stating their conclusions without presenting the evidence from which they draw these conclusions. Neither Terry nor Richard have stated their premises clearly. Neither has put forward a carefully reasoned argument. Instead, premises appear as conclusions.

For example, Richard writes, “Simon’s definition included necessary parts of the statement but not all of them and is insufficient.” That’s a conclusion. If Richard asserts this, I’d like him to state clearly what parts of a definition are missing — or at least to state clearly why he asserts an insufficient definition with some examples of what might be missing.

Friends, I’d be most interested if someone were to do a formal review of definitions of design as they occur in the design literature of the past half century. This article need not review every single one of thousands of usages. Simply using the word provides a usage exemplar — while many of these suggest an implicit definition, that would be a massive task. I’d be happy with a formal review of explicit definitions. It’s clear that some definitions might be informal, while some might be formal. Some definitions would simply repeat other definitions — for example, Simon’s definition. In this sense, they can be referenced to document usage while the analysis itself would only address Simon’s definition.     

Such an article might well address the demarcation problem in the design field.

If someone were to write such an article, She Ji would be delighted to publish it.

Warm wishes,
 
Ken

Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 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 ||| Email  [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn 

--



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