Authors
Greg Bamford
University of Queensland
Abstract
Philosophers expend considerable effort on the analysis of concepts, but the value of such work is not widely appreciated. This paper principally analyses some arguments, beliefs, and presuppositions about the nature of design and the relations between design and science common in the literature to illustrate this point, and to contribute to the foundations of design theory.
Keywords design method  scientific method  rationality  Popper  conceptual analysis
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

When Reduction Leads to Construction: Design Considerations in Scientific Methodology.Jeffry L. Ramsey - 1993 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7 (3):241 – 253.
Design Science 97.Jürgen Friedrich - 1996 - AI and Society 10 (2):199-217.
Why Specific Design is Not the Mark of the Adaptational.Jerome C. Wakefield - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):532-533.
Toward an Horizon in Design Ethics.Philippe D’Anjou - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (2):355-370.
The Design and Analysis of Scientific Experiments.Kan Chen Peng - 1967 - Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..
Has Psychology Debunked Conceptual Analysis?Per Sandin - 2006 - Metaphilosophy 37 (1):26–33.
In Defense of Engineering Sciences.Mieke Boon - 2011 - Techne 15 (1):49-71.
Notes Toward an Analysis of Conceptual Change.Mark Bevir - 2003 - Social Epistemology 17 (1):55 – 63.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-04-20

Total views
882 ( #4,562 of 2,348,620 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
56 ( #11,217 of 2,348,620 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes