Schön和Simon都同意:设计的合理性

IF 3.2 1区工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING

Design Studies Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2022.101090

Hans Georg Schaathun

{"title":"Schön和Simon都同意:设计的合理性","authors":"Hans Georg Schaathun","doi":"10.1016/j.destud.2022.101090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Simon and Schön are commonly seen to represent two conflicting views on design method, but this interpretation has been challenged in recent years. In this paper we discuss their differences and agreements in more depth. Both of them agree on a rationality which is distinct from science and its reliance on universal truth. They depend on a practical reason, and what Aristotle calls the calculative part of the soul, which deals with the contingencies of real world problems, and still let us know, and share, truth. One discrepancy remains between Simon and Schön. Simon does not tell us how we identify the changing goals of man. Schön addresses this by invoking the distinctly human power to <em>see-as</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50593,"journal":{"name":"Design Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X22000102/pdfft?md5=2c8985d2ddce02962f97d934973c6383&pid=1-s2.0-S0142694X22000102-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Where Schön and Simon agree: The rationality of design\",\"authors\":\"Hans Georg Schaathun\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.destud.2022.101090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Simon and Schön are commonly seen to represent two conflicting views on design method, but this interpretation has been challenged in recent years. In this paper we discuss their differences and agreements in more depth. Both of them agree on a rationality which is distinct from science and its reliance on universal truth. They depend on a practical reason, and what Aristotle calls the calculative part of the soul, which deals with the contingencies of real world problems, and still let us know, and share, truth. One discrepancy remains between Simon and Schön. Simon does not tell us how we identify the changing goals of man. Schön addresses this by invoking the distinctly human power to <em>see-as</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Design Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X22000102/pdfft?md5=2c8985d2ddce02962f97d934973c6383&pid=1-s2.0-S0142694X22000102-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Design Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X22000102\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X22000102","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

Simon和Schön通常被认为代表了两种相互冲突的设计方法观点，但这种解释近年来受到了挑战。本文更深入地探讨了二者的异同。他们都认同一种不同于科学的理性及其对普遍真理的依赖。它们依赖于实践理性，即亚里士多德所说的灵魂的计算部分，它处理现实世界问题的偶然性，并让我们知道并分享真理。西蒙和Schön之间还存在一个差异。西蒙没有告诉我们如何识别人类不断变化的目标。Schön通过调用独特的人类力量来解决这个问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Where Schön and Simon agree: The rationality of design

Simon and Schön are commonly seen to represent two conflicting views on design method, but this interpretation has been challenged in recent years. In this paper we discuss their differences and agreements in more depth. Both of them agree on a rationality which is distinct from science and its reliance on universal truth. They depend on a practical reason, and what Aristotle calls the calculative part of the soul, which deals with the contingencies of real world problems, and still let us know, and share, truth. One discrepancy remains between Simon and Schön. Simon does not tell us how we identify the changing goals of man. Schön addresses this by invoking the distinctly human power to see-as.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Design Studies 工程技术-工程：制造

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

20.00%

发文量

审稿时长

40 days

期刊介绍： Design Studies is a leading international academic journal focused on developing understanding of design processes. It studies design activity across all domains of application, including engineering and product design, architectural and urban design, computer artefacts and systems design. It therefore provides an interdisciplinary forum for the analysis, development and discussion of fundamental aspects of design activity, from cognition and methodology to values and philosophy. Design Studies publishes work that is concerned with the process of designing, and is relevant to a broad audience of researchers, teachers and practitioners. We welcome original, scientific and scholarly research papers reporting studies concerned with the process of designing in all its many fields, or furthering the development and application of new knowledge relating to design process. Papers should be written to be intelligible and pertinent to a wide range of readership across different design domains. To be relevant for this journal, a paper has to offer something that gives new insight into or knowledge about the design process, or assists new development of the processes of designing.