RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 17, 2021 at 3:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2021 at 3:42 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(March 17, 2021 at 2:12 pm)Apollo Wrote: We do not have such "specifity" when it comes to design.
It seems to me that the forum arbitrarily decided that "design" is an obscure incomprehensible word. And yet I'm confident that if I were to say I'm a fashion designer, nobody would be confused about what I do.
I disagree that design is unspecifiable when it comes to experimentation. Although I agree such specificity is strictly scientific, meaning, it's not something anyone on the street would know. Design can nevertheless be operationally defined for research purposes.
I've attempted to do such a thing. For example, earlier I presented a definition by a philosopher which argued that design is "the intentional initiation of change."
I would add to his definition that design is also representational. It exists as a plan or model, either in the brain, or computer, etc. This would imply that design is spatial not propositional; it is episodic not semantic. In other words, creating a mental image of a dress, or extending that image unto paper, would be classified as "designing" a dress. In contrast, merely proposing a square circle, which cannot be represented spatially, would not be considered as designing such a shape.
Perhaps my definition and approach need work (I'm not exactly being paid to work on such a project) but at least it illustrates that merely saying "design is unfalsifiable and vague" has more to do with lack of effort than the actual nature of design.