The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Apollo]

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 also 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.

It is an obscure and incomprehensible concept when you assign it as a product of an almighty designer that you have not even proven even exists.  In that context, you can simply point to anything in the universe and say, "that's by design of the almighty".

If you keep it within the scope of the known design patterns of nature and human societies we are familiar with then there is little disagreement.

Our conversation has be focused on the designer and its "design" and hence not all argument of human based design will fit.