Below, Skylar Tibbits responds to the question:
The boundaries of science are continually expanding as scientists become increasingly integral to finding solutions for larger social issues, such as poverty, conflict, financial crises, etc. On what specific issue/problem do you feel we need to bring the scientific lens to bear?
The scientific lens should be expanded to include investment, not in terms of economics, rather investment in design, pure experimentation and higher order computation as an opportunity for social/political problem solving.
As the instability of our financial situation is prolonged, dreams of efficiency and economy flood our thoughts. However, it should be equally as important to broaden our portfolio outside of monetary gain and focus on design as a way of thinking and problem solving within scientific research. Designers solve problems every day in every aspect of their lives through innovative means that break perceived conceptions. From industrial designers and revolutionary products to architects that reshape our cities and way of life. Design-based processes and innovative problem solving should be enhanced throughout our labs and scientific communities. Thus, we should invest in design as opposed to merely efficient, economic, and quick fixes. Although financially beneficial, band-aid models are often short-term and usually produce results that stay within our comfortable boundaries. Designers' solutions, on the other hand, tend to produce imaginative possibilities, challenging our technologies, inspiring hopeful futures and new ways to look at the world. Blending scientific research with design would allow development to run further, reach broader markets and have lasting effects.
Investment in design must be coupled with pure experimentation to provide challenges to our current product-driven system of grants, clients, budgets, and global mindset. Experimentation can be looked at from a pure solution-based standpoint where a problem is attacked and a solution is sought. (This tends to be more closely tied to a product-driven structure). Experimentation can also be approached from a more holistic standpoint where a direction is chosen, a method or technique is investigated and the outcome and applications are discovered. This approach tends to be employed less often; however it can produce imaginative and dramatic solutions. The problem lies in academic structures and financial support systems. Both feed experimentation, however both are obviously driven from a product stand point and thus narrow the field of development. Complementary sources of funding and stability should be developed that feed pure experimentation to allow revolutionary, exploratory and emergent solutions that can only evolve from unhindered experimentation.
- Log in to post comments
I would argue that "design" is where Science ends and Engineering begins. While there is cross-over in anthropological practice, there is a distinction in philosophical disciplines. To paraphrase Neil Gaiman, Science is a way of identifying the language of the universe which binds it to a common reality; Engineering is a method of using knowledge of such language to decide how best to demand the universe do what you want.
Essentially, Skylar Tibbits seems to be talking about a better design for how experiment is designed. (He's also advocating use of a broader range of patterns for recognizing choices as being potentially useful, but with wretched terminology.)
On the other hand, I think his position against "narrowing the field" and favoring "unhindered experimentation" is unwisely expressed. For example, I believe an experimental exploratory vivisection of Skylar Tibbits, unhindered by anesthesia or humanitarian consideration would result in a revolutionary rethinking of his position. The problem with such experiment lies in academic structures (IRB approval) and financial support systems (paying the legal bills afterwards). Hopefully, potential responses from the dramatic will understand that this experiment is imaginative.
The question he should be considering is not whether experiment design should be limited, but what limits on such design should be designed.
Defining design in scientific terms, is akin to seeking which clock in the world, is the most accurate, only to discover that the only time piece we have is not really accurate at all. Sometimes the answer is bigger and older than it is defined as. Sometime we are standing on the answer, but it is so big that we can't see it. In cycles that span hundreds and thousands of years, one disipline or another has reached great social recognition, because of it's sucessful achievements, And, most assuredly has impressed itself to no end. At least until the next cycle of change occurs and the next group in line rises up to claim the position of leader.
In short, the old saying that there is nothing new under the sun, is truthful. Design belongs to nature. Every shape, every perfect circle, every nebulas haze, every rythm. One diciplane after the other runs down the beach picking up shells, or through blackberry patches, claiming everything that is put in it's pockets or mouth, as theirs.
It's not so, design belongs to nature. It is the way of people to stake claim to what they have found. It is the way of people to claim, what they have found as their creation. It's not so, it has already been done. It belongs to nature. People just find it by digging in the sand at the beach and pulling the blackberry off the cane.