Design and Science (Part 2):
An Objectives-and-Methods
Approach
Introduction
This page builds on the foundation
of Design and
Science (Part 1),
which describes the similarities and differences, in objectives
and methods (in purpose and process), that are the basis for the Objectives-and-Methods approach
(O-and-M or OM)
discussed in this page. Design
and Science (Part 1) ends with a preview of the page you're now reading:
These
ideas, and others, will be explored more deeply in a follow-up page I'm writing: Design
and Science (Part 2). During
this exploration, a few of the many interesting questions are:
1) How should we define science and engineering? Should
we focus on functions (such as objectives and methods) or careers (by defining
science as whatever a scientist does, and engineering as whatever an engineer
does)?
2) Is "applied science" (however
this is defined) more similar to science or engineering?
3) In each field, how should we view the
contributions of experimentalists (who produce observations) and theoreticians
(who interpret observations)?
4) Do some people think the goal of science
is not (or should not be, or cannot be) a search for truth?
Currently, in the rest of this
page the focus is Question 1: How should we define science
and design?
Eventually, 2 and 3 will be discussed here,
too.
Question 4, re: science as a search for
truth, is carefully examined in a page that asks, Should
Scientific Method be EKS-Rated? {note:
EKS has replaced X, in an effort to fool the filtering programs, in a page
that's about "Wild controversies and hot debates! Are
some views of science dangerous for students? Can too much of a good
thing be harmful?
Do scientists seek the truth? Do they claim proof? Do they create
reality? How can we avoid running off (or being carried away) to silly
extremes?" [quoted from a description in the Grand
Tour of my pages
about learning, thinking, and teaching]}
Defining (and comparing) Design and Science
My "objectives and methods" model is based on comparing science and design, in order to understand their essential similarities and differences:
In science our
overall long-term objective is to search for the truth, to develop theories
that are accurate representations of reality. During this search our
most useful [methodological] tool is a reality check
that compares theory-based predictions with observations.
In conventional design the
main objective is to develop an improved product or strategy, and our most
useful tools [methods] are quality checks that
compare goals with predictions, and goals
with observations. Although in design it may be useful to get
feedback about theories by comparing predictions and observations, this is
not the central
focus of action, as it is in science.
In the remainder of the page, this theory about science-and-design (their relationships and their similarities and differences) is not examined with the sophistication and precision that it deserves, that eventually it will have when I'm able to invest more time in developing it. Despite the loose ends, however, I think you'll find the following discussion to be interesting and stimulating, so here it is:
The two main criteria for evaluating a theory are plausibility and utility: plausibility asks "Is it likely to be true, to accurately describe reality?", while utility asks "Is it useful?"
The perceived plausibility of my Objectives-and-Methods
(OM) approach will depend on our definitions:
If science is defined as "what scientists
do" and design is "what designers do," then some aspects of
OM will appear unsatisfactory because "a scientist
sometimes does design, and a designer
sometimes does science." Similarly,
other definitions may lead to other perceived inadequacies in OM. In
other words, to the extent that science and design are defined in ways that
differ from the OM-definitions, the OM-model may appear to be indadequate.
But if science and design are defined in
terms of objectives and methods, as in OM, the questions become more focused
and we can ask, "In what ways are the O-and-M descriptions in OM satisfactory,
and in what ways are they inadequate?" Does
OM allow — or even better, does it encourage and facilitate — a
description of science
and design that is similar to the views held by scientists and designers, by
philosophers who think about "what scientists and designers should do,"
by historians who study "what scientists and designers actually do,"
and by others?
What will be the outcome of our evaluations
(about the plausibility and utility of how O-and-M are described in OM) and
our debates about definitions? I'm
not sure. I
think OM is reasonably plausible, providing a reasonably accurate (although
incomplete) description of
the basic
thinking methods that are used in science and design. But
others (and perhaps myself at a later time) may see things differently.
When I'm considering OM's perceived
plausibility (as judged by the community of scientists, designers,
and scholars) my current response is that "I'm
not sure." By
contrast, I'm
very confident about the potential utility of
OM. In
my opinion, OM provides a useful analytical framework that could stimulate
plenty of productive thinking
and could help improve our understanding of science and design.
One reason for this contrast is that, in
the early stages of its development, the utility of a theory does not necessarily
depend on its accuracy. If our goal is a search for truth
(and I think this is the proper goal), we should always acknowledge the ways
in which a theory seems
inaccurate or incomplete, and eventually an incorrect theory should be either
abandoned or modifed-and-improved. And always, from the beginning, its
limitations should be acknowledged. But
in the "pursuit" stage of development, when we are exploring a theory's
implications and potential applications, and testing its accuracy, a false
theory can be useful.
Although this claim may sound strange
when you first hear it, some rational justifications for it are outlined in
the conclusion
of a section
about
the criteria
used by scientists when evaluating
a model that is an "intentionally simplified artifical representation" of
a more
complex real system:
Wimsatt (1987) discusses some ways that a false model can be scientifically useful. Even if a model is wrong, it may inspire the design of interesting experiments. It may stimulate new ways of thinking that lead to the critical examination and revision (or rejection) of another theory. It may stimulate a search for empirical patterns in data. Or it may serve as a starting point; by continually refining and revising a false model, perhaps a better model can be developed. / Many of Wimsatt's descriptions of utility involve a model that is false due to an incomplete description of components for entities, actions, or interactions. When the erroneous predictions of an incomplete model are analyzed, this can provide information about the effects of components that have been omitted or oversimplified. For example, to study how "damping force" affects pendulum motion,...; or consider the Castle-Hardy-Weinberg Model for population genetics, which assumes an idealized system that never occurs in nature; deviations from the model's predictions indicate... {note: I've added emphasis and have omitted the details (indicated by "...") that aren't necessary for this page.} This excerpt is from Section 2A — which discusses "Simplicity" in terms of Logical Systematicity, Simplified Models, Coping with Complexity, Tensions between Conflicting Criteria , and (in the excerpt) False but Useful — in my Detailed Overview of Scientific Method.
In my opinion, OM is a fairly accurate "first
approximation
model" that can be refined into a model that is even more accurate. But
I
don't think any model of "science and design" — including OM
and
its
logical
extensions
(which
are
implied
whenever
I say "OM") — will ever be
totally accurate and complete. (*) Although
I think OM is basically sound, my expectations
are realistic, so when I find ways in which OM is inadequate, and
when others disagree with the views I've constructed, I won't necessarily be
disappointed. These flaws and debates will be fine with me, as long as
the thinking and discussion that's being stimulated by OM is interesting and
useful. My ultimate goal is improved
understanding,
not a defense of OM. { If we
find a situation where OM seems to be accurate, this can be useful. And
if we find a situation where it seems in accurate, this can also be useful. }
* Certainly,
OM is incomplete. Obviously, the actual complexity of science (as characterized
in
my
comprehensive model
of Integrated
Scientific
Method (*) which is summarized in a
brief-yet-thorough
Overview of
Scientific
Method) is
much
greater than the oversimplified model of science in OM. But the main themes
of science — comparing
predictions
with
observations, with the goal of searching for truth about nature — are featured
in OM, and this is all that I claim for it. The features of design are
similarly simplified, but again I think the essence of design is in the model. / * In
the model's
name, "Integrated"
indicates that the model is
based on integrative analysis
in which the goal is not just to characterize the individual activities
that
are part of the process of scientific thinking,
but
also (by characterizing their mutually interactive
relationships) to show the dynamics of their integration into a coherent overall
process.
Is it rational to ask if OM is true
or false? During evaluation in natural science, we are comparing a theory
(that we have constructed) with nature (which we have not constructed). But
during an evaluation of OM, often we are comparing one theory (that
is humanly constructed) with other theories (that also have been humanly constructed),
so reality
checks — which
are the essence of natural science — must be interpreted in a more sophisticated
way, with appropriate humility. We
should recognize the logical limitations that are inherent
when
we compare humanly constructed theories, when we compare an OM-model
with other models that humans have constructed about
science and design, about their definitions,
characteristics,
and relationships. When
we're thinking about OM it is much less appropriate — compared with a
situation where a scientific theory about a natural phenomenon is being evaluated —
to ask whether OM is true.
Here is a summary/review, comparing the
two contexts: 1) When we evaluate the plausibility
of a scientific theory, we're asking whether it accurately describes what happens
in nature,
and we don't control the laws of nature. 2) But
when we evaluate a model of science-and-design, one of our main questions
is whether the model is an accurate representation of our own views
about science-and-design, which we (as individuals and in communities) have
constructed and do
control. In both 1 and 2, we should do "reality checks" in an
effort to
determine
the
extent
to which a theory/model matches reality,
but
in the contexts of 1 and 2 the
meaning of the "reality" differs in important
ways.
For
example, imagine that someone criticizes OM because engineers (who are designers?)
sometimes compare observations with predictions (but in OM this is "doing
science")
to
test
the
adequacy
of
a
theory
they
are
using. Is this criticism
trivial, based only on a disagreement about whether the word "design" should
be
defined in terms of careers or methods? In this case, we are just
using
different
labels for similar
views. Or do the different labels reflect significant differences
in
the
ways
we are thinking
about
design?
In this example, let's consider one type
of thinking: the mental process of comparing predictions with observations. Is
it inconsistent to call this process "design"
when it
occurs
in the
overall context
of design, but to call the same process "science" when it occurs
in the overall context of science? Or is it inconsistent, during a long-term
process of design in which the overall goal is to improve a product, to say
that a
designer is shifting back and forth between short-term processes of design
(when the
immediate goal is to seek improvement) and science (when the immediate goal
is to seek understanding)?
Should we try to choose between these two
perspectives? Or should we, at least temporarily on a trial basis, try
to develop both perspectives? It might be productive to carefully study,
using different perspectives, the situations in which (according
to OM) a
scientist does design, or a designer does
science. I think this type of study would help us improve our understanding
of design and science, and would help us construct models that are more complete
and
accurate. {
Of course, asking "Can a designer do science?" is only one of
the many interesting questions that could be asked in multi-perspective studies.
}
some comments
about perspectives: There are differences, among scholars, in our attitudes
toward analysis, in our tendencies to use categories or avoid them, to choose
criteria for categorizing (and to be lumpers or splitters), to categorize in
terms of multiple dimensions, and to
see the
mutually interactive relationships that form the integrative aspect
of integrative analysis. Instead of simply arguing about the relative
merits of each type of preference, maybe we should try
to learn more from each other.
Putting Things in Context: A Practical
Perspective
The main purpose of OM (and the models of design and science
on
which
OM
is
based) is not scholarly discussion, it is educational application. I'm
hoping that OM, as part of an educational approach that uses Integrated Design
Method
and
Integrated
Scientific
Method in creative ways, will help students understand design and science,
and will help them learn how to think more effectively and enjoy it more. Some
ideas for doing this are outlined in the "Design
and Science in Education" parts of An
Introduction to Design and are developed
more fully in other pages.
As mentioned earlier, at this time in
this page I won't be giving the many important questions the attention
they deserve. Instead,
I'll re-emphasize the main theme, which is fairly simple:
I don't
expect everyone to agree with everything in OM, but I think our agreements
and disagreements
(about
where OM is and isn't adequate)
will be interesting and useful, will stimulate creative and critical thinking,
and will improve our understanding of science and design.
OTHER PAGES:
If you like this page, you may also like the following related pages: