Basic cognitive characteristics of artifact design
As the amount of cognition oriented analysis of technological design is
rather limited, in this section references will also be made to a couple of
applicable contributions in
the Cognition Basis of Science.
[Carruthers 2002] In his contribution
Human Evolution and the
Cognitive Basis of Science Steven Mithen, defines as basic characteristics
of science, [Mithen 2002: 24] (with the remarks that, these are not
philosophical definitions and that not all of these are necessarily
essential):
1. Detailed observations of the natural world;
2. The generation of hypotheses with the potential of falsification;
3. The notion of causation;
4. The use of tools to extend human perception and cognition;
5. The accumulation of knowledge;
6.The use of metaphor and analogy to facilitate scientific thought and to
aid communication.
Most of these are, indirectly (as technology makes use of scientific
knowledge) and directly, applicable as characteristics of technology, with
the exception of element 2. Falsification is applicable in a completely
different way: the application of hypotheses or ideas will be falsified in
practice, by testing during the design process, and after that by
experience, whether or not the resulting artifact proves to be satisfying in
actual use.
Based on these characteristics Mithen analyses the findings of prehistorical
research and concludes that Neanderthaler and probably also earlier hominoid
already showed characteristics 1 and 3 of these characteristics. Homo
Sapiens between 50 000 and around 8000 years ago shows three cognitive
foundations for science (and technology), the use of material culture to
extend human perception and cognition, the accumulation of knowledge through
time, and the use of metaphor and analogy.
(CS 3.3.1) The general assumption is that the capabilities to perform
the basic functions for artifact design remained basically the same over
these last 8000 years, be it that the performance might have been stimulated
and improved by cultural development.
The notion of tacit knowing} has been coined by Michael
Polanyi. [Polanyi1966) It is not restricted to designers. Sch\pol on
argues that this can be recognized by many other professionals such as
lawyers, and even accountants. [Schön 1983: 52).
(Indeed every one who worked with financial professionals accountants,
financial controllers etc. for the first time will be amazed by the speed
how they find their way in large number of figures, and get at the
significant information for example in complex balance sheets.)
Although direct empirical evidence that our brains integrate tools as
extensions of our own bodies is quite recent, the understanding of this
being the case is much older. Michael Polanyi used the example how a stick
can be used to probe a cave and form an impression of the internal shape
without seeing it or directly feeling it. More specific in relation to
scientific and technological knowledge, Polanyi introduced the notion of
tacit knowledge to indicate the large amount of implicit,
non-linguistic knowledge that plays an essential role in human activities.
[Polanyi 1966] The example of face recognition is often used to
indicate this kind of knowledge, but also recognition of plants and minerals
are good examples. We recognize familiar faces immediately in a large crowd,
but we are not able to describe a face by the use of language. However, we
are able to recognize a face from a photo, a painting and even from the
minimal sketch or a caricature. In other words as Polanyi formulates it:
we know more than we can say. (id: 4) Such tacit knowledge has a
holistic character, it cannot be simply reduced to components. Polanyi
refers to Gestalt psychology and to skills with the combination of
knowing what and knowing how
True knowledge of a theory can be established only after it has been
interiorized and extensively used to interpret experience. [id.: 21]
It is that interiorized knowledge that forms the base for playing with
concepts where this knowledge is integrated.
With the example of the stereo viewer where our brains make a three
dimensional image of two two-dimensional pictures, Polanyi argues that
integration of available knowledge is done (partly?) without us being aware
of it.
In his overview
Tacit Knowledge and Engineering Design Paul
Nightingale gives a number of references with empirical evidence that
support Polanyi's view that much of our learning and problem solving ability
is tacit. [Nightingale2009] As for example Damasio states: it is
quite obvious that the basic tacit capabilities developed in an earlier
stage in evolution than the higher cognition and linguistic capabilities.
[Damasio 1999: 30-31]
It is generally accepted that embedded cognition and tacit knowledge are
typically not acquired by book learning, but these will be based on what
Dewey indicated as
inquiring action. Gedenryd makes a division into
exploration and
experimentation. [Gedenryd 1998: 123-130]
\noindent Exploration, kind of (un)structural playing around, without a
specific purpose, prediction or expectation, will not only provide the
knowledge and understanding of the characteristics of the component or
artifact, but as Gedenryd states with a refers to Dewey: to make changes
which will elicit some previously unperceived qualities, and by varying
conditions of perception shake loose some property which as it stands blinds
or misleads us. Sch\"on characterises this kind of activity as: This is much
of what an infant does when he explores the world around him.
Materials, and artifacts as components, with their forms and characteristics
will be explored to acquire knowledge, or in colloquial language get a
feeling.
\noindent Gedenryd defines experimentation as more powerful than
exploration, in design it is the main method for testing and working out
ideas. He argues, with reference to a case description in Sch
ön's The
reflective practitioner, that, in architecture, drawing en sketching are not
just recording the end product of design, but these are tools to verify the
feasibility of the ideas.
More in general, experiments show the limitations of simulations in the
head, by interactive experimentations in the world. Experiments in the world
can reveal the unanticipated consequences of ideas.
A significant part of the processing of the acquired knowledge can be
unconscious. Marc Slors refers to a number of quotes from famous scientists
about the moments of their discoveries. [Slors 2010] These quotes suggest that the solutions to tremendously
complex problems apparently `just come to them', without conscious effort.
Slors states that although the thought processes that lead from what these
scientists already know to their discoveries were completely unconscious, it
is not to be denied that these processes were only possible due to years of
stage setting} including numerous conscious} episodes.
Among the key processes in artifact design are a cluster of processes
indicated as theoretical rationality, practical rationality, judgment and
decision making. In daily life and in philosophy there is some overlap in
the meaning of these indications. The majority of the philosophical
activities on these subjects have their focus on ethics. Although ethics
should play and often plays a role in artifact design, it is not a main
element in the basic design process considered here. It will be included as
an element in the overal value judgement(see 4.5).
It is quite common to divide rationality into
theoretical -
and
practical rationality. The definition of Mele seems to be
consistent with most other authors:
[t]theoretical or epistemic rationality is concerned with what is
rational to believe, or with certain rational degree of belief. [Mele 2004]
This seems to relate to conscious activities only. However, as analysed both
in the examples of and the references above, interiorized and
tacit knowledge play a substantial role in artifact design.
The view, among philosophers, of what should be understood by
practical rationality is more diverse. It is generally understood that it
relates to the desires of, the judgment of and decision to choose certain
alternatives. Many authors state that the two rationalities are more or less
strongly interrelated. These discussions are strongly related to the kind of
discussion domain, with ethics as the most important domain. The element of
deliberation plays a role in most of the domains. In artifact design it is
an element exercised by every one who is involved in structuring one's
thoughts. Almost every design activity today is team work. This deliberation
is also a main element in the communication processes of the team involved.
In relation to action-theoretical-approaches practical rationality is
concerned with what is rational to do, or to intend, or to desire.
[Mele 2004: 30]
It takes a distinctly normative question as a starting point. Practical
rationality thus is not concerned with matters of fact but with matters of
value, reasons for desire.
The actual judgment of all aspects in the decision making process, finally
appears not to be a pure rational process, as illustrated by the famous case
of Damasio with patient Trefor. [Damasio 1994: chap 3] Mr Trefor had a
tumour removed from his brain. After that operation he failed to function
properly at home and at his work. However, he passed all standard cognition
tests. In the last test he realised an above average score with his
capability to react to social situations and account for the reasons and
consequences of certain decisions, including the potential consequences. In
other words his practical rationality capability showed good results.
However, as he himself said `yet I would still not know what to decide'.
With the removal of the brain parts that also relate to emotional activities
he had lost that particular capability to weigh the values of the
alternatives and to make decisions. Part of that weighing can be done
rationally, but as various incompatible values are involved it requires
more, or rather, a different capability to compare and value each
alternative in a proper way to come to decisions. A significant part of this
process is performed at a sub-conscious level, as is also demonstrated by
various experiments with sub-conscious influences. Human beings are very
capable of giving rational explanations, reasons for their behaviour, be it
notoriously not very reliable.
(C3.4.1.)} The development of artifacts can be understood as the
results of countless numbers of transitions, small design changes. Only a
small number is observable as realised artifacts, but most are intermediate
results in the mind of designers and design teams.
(C3.4.2.)} Existing artifacts form the input of the design
process, not in isolation, but in combination with all kinds of related
information including what Houkes and Vermaas called the use plan}.
The use plan} is a notion to indicate the understanding 'how to use
the artifact to perform its function in supporting a users action'.
(C.3.4.3.)}There is no basic difference in this process
between the historical developments and the design processes of individual
designers and design teams.
(C3.4.4)} Two different conceptual approaches in the
analysis of artifact design can be observed. There is the analytical
oriented approach where artifact design is considered as based on rational
reasoning. This approach is applicable in case of routine design with
relatively small modifications of existing artifacts and in case
combinations of existing artifacts. In these cases prescribing methodologies
are applicable.
But as various authors argued and demonstrated, conceptual and more
innovative design steps often require a more integral process of
understanding based on interiorized tacit knowledge. The capability of this
way of designing requires an innate base, that can not be learned, but when
this base is available it can be further developed by training and
experience.
The above made observations can be summarised in a diagram
as given below.\fn{This is an extension of the diagram given by Bryan
Lawson. [Lawson1980}: 149)}

figure 5.2 creative process \normalsize
Remark: The judgment activity in the diagram includes both the
rational deliberation and the unconscious weighing of incommensurable values.
How the complex, partly unconscious, transformation processes can
be understood will be the main subject of the section .