What exactly are we comparing here? The methods or the actual fields?
> 1. The primary objective of science is to understand the world around us whereas the primary objective of design is to improve the world around us.
Well yes - they aren't the "same thing" by definition. One has to do with "this" body of knowledge, and the other has to do with "that" body of knowledge.
> 2. The end product of a scientific method is a theory or law that is absolutely rigorous and independent of people, whereas the end product of a design process is a solution that can always be improved, depending on people.
I would also pose that perhaps the second of the two primary differing aspects listed is not true - at least not the way it's written. The scientific method does not always in "a theory or law that is absolutely rigorous and independent of people". We only find better ways to describe the world around us. Over the course of our history, we have always found better ways to explain what we held as an absolute truth previously. There does not seem to be an absolute (an entirely new discussion).
If you accept this point of view, then the parallel to design is quite obvious.
The way this article narrows it's scope - I would say they are the same thing. But at the same time the scientific method was... well... designed? So... what do I know?
1 comment
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 7.2 ms ] thread> 1. The primary objective of science is to understand the world around us whereas the primary objective of design is to improve the world around us.
Well yes - they aren't the "same thing" by definition. One has to do with "this" body of knowledge, and the other has to do with "that" body of knowledge.
> 2. The end product of a scientific method is a theory or law that is absolutely rigorous and independent of people, whereas the end product of a design process is a solution that can always be improved, depending on people.
I would also pose that perhaps the second of the two primary differing aspects listed is not true - at least not the way it's written. The scientific method does not always in "a theory or law that is absolutely rigorous and independent of people". We only find better ways to describe the world around us. Over the course of our history, we have always found better ways to explain what we held as an absolute truth previously. There does not seem to be an absolute (an entirely new discussion).
If you accept this point of view, then the parallel to design is quite obvious.
The way this article narrows it's scope - I would say they are the same thing. But at the same time the scientific method was... well... designed? So... what do I know?