Candidate worldviews for design theory

Our growing body of design theory risks being infected by more inconsistency than is justifiable by genuine disagreement among design theorists. Taking my cue from C. S. Peirce, who argued that theory inevitably rests on basic metaphysical assumptions that theorists ought to be critically aware of, I demonstrate how ‘insidious inconsistency’ may infect design theory if we ignore his admonition. As a possible remedy, I propose a method by which the philosophy of design may develop sound metaphysical foundations (‘worldviews’) for design theory – and generate philosophical insights into design at the same time. Examples are given of how the first steps of the method may be carried out and a number of candidate worldviews are outlined and briefly discussed. In its own way, each worldview answers certain fundamental questions about the nature of design. These include the ontological question of what the subject matter of design might be; and the epistemological question of how designers can rely on their predictions about the properties of a potentially novel artefact. The purpose of the paper is not to attempt any definitive answers to such questions, but rather to draw critical attention to the metaphysical (pre-empirical) and conceptual foundations of design theory.

[1]  James E. Tomberlin,et al.  On the Plurality of Worlds. , 1989 .

[2]  N. F. M. Roozenburg,et al.  Product design: Fundamentals and methods , 1996 .

[3]  P. Goggans How Not To Have an Ontology of Physical OBJECTS , 1999 .

[4]  Arkadiusz Chrudzimski Existence, culture, and persons : the ontology of Roman Ingarden , 2005 .

[5]  Christopher Alexander,et al.  The Timeless Way of Building , 1979 .

[6]  Sara Ilstedt Hjelm,et al.  If everything is design, what then is a designer? , 2005, Nordes 2005: In the Making.

[7]  H. Simon The Sciences of the Artificial, (Third edition) , 1997 .

[8]  Ken Friedman,et al.  Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods , 2003 .

[9]  John F. Phillips Truth and Inference in Fiction , 1999 .

[10]  Terence Love,et al.  Philosophy of design: a meta-theoretical structure for design theory , 2000 .

[11]  K. Popper Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach , 1972 .

[12]  Nigan Bayazit,et al.  Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research , 2004, Design Issues.

[13]  Ludwig Wittgenstein,et al.  Tractatus logico-philosophicus ; Tagebücher 1914-1916 ; Philosophische Untersuchungen , 1960 .

[14]  Per Galle,et al.  Alexander Patterns for Design Computing: Atoms of Conceptual Structure? , 1991 .

[15]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and Refutations , 1963 .

[16]  Jane Darke,et al.  The primary Generator and the Design Process , 1979 .

[17]  Michael J. Loux Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction , 1997 .

[18]  Stefano Predelli TALK ABOUT FICTION , 1997 .

[19]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  An Evolutionary Approach , 2004 .

[20]  T. Love Are 'the reflective practitioner' and 'learning cycles' suitable foundations for theories about designing and design cognition , 2002 .

[21]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Conjectures and refutations: A reply to Norris , 1982, Cognition.

[22]  Marx W. Wartofsky,et al.  Metaphysics as Heuristic for Science , 1967 .

[23]  Richard Buchanan Branzi’s Dilemma: Design In Contemporary Culture , 2010 .

[24]  N. Cross Designerly ways of knowing , 2006 .

[25]  Gerald Vision Reference and the Ghost of Parmenides , 1985 .

[26]  M. Leng,et al.  Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics , 2001 .

[27]  Amie L. Thomasson Fiction and metaphysics , 1998 .

[28]  Joseph Diekemper,et al.  Presentism and ontological symmetry , 2005 .

[29]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Methods of Logic , 1951 .

[30]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[31]  Marx W. Wartofsky,et al.  Models: Representation And The Scientific Understanding , 1979 .

[32]  Yan Liu The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates by Willemien Visser , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[33]  Ingarden and the Ontology of Cultural Objects , 2005 .

[34]  Alexander George Mathematics and mind , 1994 .

[35]  Per Galle,et al.  Design as intentional action: a conceptual analysis , 1999 .

[36]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[37]  Pj Clarkson,et al.  A comparative programme for design research , 2002 .

[38]  Vilém Flusser The shape of things , 1999 .

[39]  G. Frege Über Sinn und Bedeutung , 1892 .

[40]  Michael Brawne From Idea to Building: Issues in Architecture , 1991 .

[41]  D. Schoen The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[42]  Terence Love,et al.  Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: some philosophical issues , 2002 .

[43]  Donald A. Sch The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[44]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[45]  N. Goodman Fact, Fiction, and Forecast , 1955 .

[46]  Bruce Archer,et al.  Design as a discipline , 1979 .