|
first: 2011-10-12
last: 2011-11-09 |
The question to be answered in this section:
How can we explain / understand the design process?
As worked out in
action theory final cause can de justified as a causal
explanation of action. However, this is not sufficient to explain design of
functional artifacts. A very valuable input for our analysis is found with
Aristotle. He analyzed the artifacts, the things not caused by nature, in
terms of four causes: material cause, form cause, efficient cause and final
cause. [Aristotle: Physics book II 194-198] These basic causes usually work
together, as he explains with the example of the house builder who has
knowledge about the
form of the house and the
matter, the bricks,
beams and so forth. [id.: 194a/25] In Metaphysics Aristotle refers to
stones, bricks and timbers as a potential house. As defined by covering
bodies and chattels and other similar differentia one speaks of an actual
house. In case these are combined one speaks of the third kind of substance,
which is composed of matter and form. [Aristotle: Metaphysics book
VIII-1043a15] Aristotle indicated these combined causes as the
cause of
unity (see quote and
reference).
Aristotle remarked:
This then perhaps exhausts the number of ways in which
the term 'cause' is used. [id.: 195a1] In other words the meaning of the
term
cause by Aristotle has no other than what he defined in listing the
usage. In a similar way the meaning of cause in this essay is defined by the
similar use by Aristotle in that book of Physics. (And the way Heidegger
defined his usage)
The following definitions include the interrelation of the causal factors.
These interrelations are consistent with Aristotle's cause of unity as
mentioned above
[def] The material of the material cause means:
that what can be
used to realize the form and the function (final cause),
[def] The form of the form cause can be defined as
how the material
can be used to reach the goal, (final cause, the intended use of the
artifact)
An interesting example directly related to Aristotle's reference to house
building can be found in Steven Mithen's
Human Evolution and the Cognitive
Basis of Science. He refers to the development of a completely new building
technique in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic era (PPN). In the PPN-A period small
circular dwellings were built. Around 9000 years ago in the so called PPN-B
period rectangular buildings, using either mud-bricks or stone were built,
frequently with two storeys. [Davis2010: 39]
Here we see the causal relation between material and form. Using tree
branches and twigs, building a square form is more difficult, a circular
form is more stable and one loses material when one has to cut the material
in the length of side. On the other hand, when building with standard sized
mud-bricks, a square form makes sense.
As will be worked out in this section, and demonstrated in the examples from
agriculture and
semiconductors, this model of four different causes still appears to be applicable in
understanding technological developments and artifact design. The key capability to realize artifacts, changing the form of
material, is quite common in the animal world. The next and most important
key capability,
the deliberate action to combine materials, seems to be a
specific human capability.
Heidegger in his search for the instrumental essence of technology refered to
the four causes defined by Aristotle. In
Die Technik he analysed
the coming
in existence of artifacts:
The instrumental approach does not give us the essence. We have to look for
the essence of the instrumental. A means to end is what works in the
direction of a goal.
Where goals are pursued, means are used, where the instrumental masters,
there prevails causality. [Heidegger 1962:8]
Then, he refered to the four causalities as introduced by Aristotle:
The four
causalities bring what is-not into reality. They `
occasion'
(Ver-an-lassen) the artifact as a kind of revealing.
He used an example of a silver sacrificial chalice (Opferschale).
[Heidegger1962}: 8-11) It is not just the silversmith that brings
about the chalice. The silver is co-responsible (mitschuld), the chalice is
indebted to the silver. But not just to the silver, the silver does not
bring about the chalice, it is the aspect (eidos) of chaliceness
(
schalenhaftem) that as
form cause is co-responsible.
For the translation of Heideggers wordings into English I have made use
of the translation by William Lovitt as in [Scharff 2003: 252-264]. Some
typical Heideggerian terms are added between ().
It is quite evident that design activities are related to
knowledge. In general knowledge can be related not only to the basic causes
like wood and stone with their basic characteristics, the concept of forms
like roof and hinge are independent of the material, efficient cause relates
to the knowledge of how things perform and final cause relates to knowledge
in relation to the goals, but also to combinations of these causes relate to
as kind of standard solution knowledge and experience base.
Reconsidering the lines of thought and reasoning in design processes I
recognised the above mentioned causal factors, but then I realized I
missed one important factor: the cost factor, or to be more precise
value as the result between cost and yield (not only in terms of money
as will be discussed below). It is striking that, while value is
considered to be the difference between ad-hoc tools and artifacts, as
mentioned in
Views on Artifacts, this aspect has received little attention in
philosophy of technology in general and in the various specific
reflections on artifacts in particular. A few exceptions with attention
to the factor of value are:
Mario Bunge, in his Philosophical Inputs and Outputs of Technology}
gives an interesting survey of the interaction of technology and
philosophy. He observed that one of the differences between science and
technology is the orientation of technology on value, whereas pure
science is driven only by its own interest. [Bunge 1979:177]
Ibo van der Poel states even more explicitly:
[v]alue is at the heart of engineering design. Design creates value for
companies, users and ultimately, for society. [Poel 2009: 973]
In this subsection I will make it plausible that, to understand the
design process, it makes sense to consider value as a kind of
additional causal element. To be more precise value should be
understood as the net value of an artifact. This means the value minus
costs has to be considered as a causal driving factor, not in isolation
but like the earlier mentioned causalities usually in combination with
those other causalities. Although not mentioned by Aristotle, it seems
evident that also with his example of building a house, cost plays a
dominant role in the decisions on size and materials. In the example
above of the plough development, the replacement of the wooden beam of
the ploughs by standard iron bars was related to the cost of the
material.
Value is also directly related with the basic causes. In general value
is considered to be related to a bearer. A bearer can be any kind of
concrete or abstract entity or state of affairs. [Hsieh 2007] In this
context the four causalities have to be considered as bearer of positive
- and negative (costs)values, but that does not exclude other bearers,
such as status.
The cost to be considered in this kind of value related causation,
should be seen as the total cost of ownership (TCO). This includes not
only the initial cost but also the cost to maintain the artifacts
function and today we even have to add the cost of demolishing it. With
all these considerations it should be clear that cost and value are
variable in time. In particular the value might change relatively fast
with new technological developments.
Value should include not only the direct economic effect of the
application of the artifact over its economic life cycle. Beth Preston
refers to the example of uniforms, not serving as clothes only, but
these have specific concurrent secondary functions. [Preston2009: 215]
Uniforms indicate that the person wearing it belong to a certain group
and or practices a certain function. In a similar way one can recognize
that a house or a building in general represents a certain status, it
can also include the function of being an investment. In general
aesthetical aspects and ethical considerations are to be taken into
account of the nett value.
The aesthetics add value
Although the value of functional artifacts is primarily
determined by the way and efficiency to provide the use plan}, also the
appearance can contribute to its value. Heidegger's example of the
sacrificial chalice can be seen as a good example. The choice for silver
and the decorations made by the silversmith add value to match the
requirement of the sacrificial purpose of the artifact. Aesthetic
aspects play an important, and often a dominant, role in the design of
almost all functional artifacts today. In this context we see 'design'
used as an adjective. Even for production equipment in factories we see
aesthetical, industrial design being used to give the equipment an
attractive appearance.
The ethical aspects
Since the middle of the last century the strong growth of
technology has been, more systematically, brought in relation to ethics.
As Bunge formulated: technology needs some ethical bridling.
[Bunge 1979:179] Moral decision making is value oriented. Ibo van der
Poel refers to an interesting example where environmental considerations
lead to the decision to close the Eastern Scheldt estuary not by a fixed
dam, but by a more open, and more expensive, barrier that can be closed
in case of storm floods. [Poel 2009: 1001] It is not easy to measure
ethical value in terms of cost. Therefore a number of ethical aspects
are made explicit through requirements in the form of, preferably
international, standard norms. For example, safety aspects of equipment
and tools shall confirm to international safety standards. Environmental
considerations stopped, by such norms, the usage of certain chemicals in
cooling equipment.
Incommensurable values
Although the consequences of the basic causation often might
be expressed in an applicable currency, this is in general difficult or
impossible in particular in case of major innovation steps, and in an
early stage of the design phase. This means that decisions will be based
on weighing incommensurable values. As mentioned, with some of the
examples in appendix 3 and 4, often so called early adopters bring a new
trend in artifacts into usage even in case the direct economic advantage
for them is questionable or even negative. In such case elements like
the status of being advanced} have to be considered as intangible value.
This point of decision making in case of incommensurable values will be
an issue discussed, but not really solved, in chapter 5.
Conclusions
The basic causes (final cause, form cause, material cause,
efficient cause and the value cause) can be considered as somehow,
somewhere being in the mind as essential elements in the artifact design
process. With:
The material of the material cause
means: that what can be used to realize the form and the function (final
cause),
and
The form of the form cause can be defined as how the material
can be used to reach the goal, (final cause, the intended use of the
artifact)
As indicated, in the example of semiconductor and system developments,
material can also be a virtual design element as a subsystem in a larger
configuration.
It should be noted that the final-, form-, material, and efficient cause
here are used only as causes in cognitive action processes. This is a
much restricted use than Aristotle's' general and metaphysical use.
As argued above tangible and
intangible values play a cognitive causal role in functional artifact
design.
The diagram in the figure below updates the
reference model of section DITT with the results of above.
causal model
The analysis made in this subsection did not cover the aspect of what
could be called distributed cognition. In many cases in the past and
almost always today, the design of artifacts is teamwork. For the mainly
causal and cognitive analysis made in this essay it is less relevant
whether certain steps from one artifact to an improved version have been
made by the same actor, the same team, or by a sequence of actors and
teams. In addition to that seeing an existing artifact designed
elsewhere and recognizing its shortcomings often leads to improvements.
The four causalities are directly related to the artifact design
and realization. In other contexts one considers population growth, shortage
of energy, floods, a war situation, etc. to cause the need for artifacts and
thus artifact design. This is an indirect relation to the artifact itself.
These situations "created" the conditions to stimulate and direct the
design of the artifact, not the artifact itself. The basic causations can be
recognized directly when analysing the artifact and its use plan in relation
to the the design process.
Communication, information exchange of invented improvements elsewhere, as
it is common today, formed an important factor in the start up phase of
modern technology, with for example since the beginning of the 19th century
specific agricultural magazines and newspapers as indicated in the examples
of agricultural artefacts.
The various aspects of what is indicated with communication are usually
identified under the umbrella of
Social
Construction of Technology (SCOT). These communication aspects
include not only the
common ground of the community of
designers and users but also the effect of new input from elsewhere as
indicated in the descriptions of the examples.
Hans Jonas, noticed that since the early human artifacts, revolutionary
inventions occurred more by accident than by design. Historically, short
periods of fast improvements were followed by hundreds or even thousands of
years of stable usage with only small improvements.
On the whole (not counting upheavals), the great classical
civilizations had comparatively early reached a point of technological
saturation, an optimum in equilibrium of means with acknowledged needs and
goals and had little cause later to go beyond it.[Jonas 1979]
Jones identified modern technology by its restless nature. The driving force
of the direct need to solve essential problems, is replaced by autonomous
progress, not only of technology and science, as a cultural condition.
The considerations given above can be visualised in a reference model
diagram