Advertisement

Model-Based Abduction in Design

  • Lauri Koskela
  • Ehud Kroll
Conference paper

Abstract

In prior literature, design abduction has been conceived in sentential (propositional) terms. The aim in this presentation is to explore the significance of internal mental models and images, and their external projections, in design abduction. Seminal and current literature on model-based reasoning in cognitive psychology and philosophy of science are reviewed. A retrospective case study on the invention of the airplane by the Wright brothers reveals that most occurrences of design abduction were model based. Conclusions and reflections flowing from the findings are presented.

References

  1. 1.
    Koskela L, Paavola S, Kroll E (2018) The role of abduction in production of new ideas in design. In: Vermaas P, Vial S (eds) Advancements in philosophy of design. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kroll E, Koskela L (2017) Studying design abduction in the context of novelty. In: DS 87-7 Proceeding of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vol 7: Design Theory and Research Methodology, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson-Laird P (2010) Mental models and human reasoning. PNAS 107(43):18243–18250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kapitan T (1990) In what way is abductive inference creative? Trans Charles S. Peirce Soc 26(4):499–512Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Magnani L (2004) Model-based and manipulative abduction in science. Found Sci 9:219–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magnani L, Bertolotti T (2017) Springer handbook of model-based science. Springer, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson-Laird PN (2001) Mental models and human reasoning. In: Language, brain, and cognitive development: essays in honor of Jacques Mehler. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 85–102Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson-Laird PN (1998) Imagery, visualization, and thinking. In: Hochberg J (ed) Perception and cognition at the century’s end. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 441–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson-Laird PN (2002) Peirce, logic diagrams, and the elementary operations of reasoning. Think Reason 8(1):69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tversky B (2011) Visualizing thought. Top Cogn Sci 3:499–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tversky B, Kessell A (2014) Thinking in action. Pragmat Cogn 22(2):206–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tversky B (2015) The cognitive design of tools of thought. Rev Phil Psych 6(1):99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hintikka J (1997) On creativity in reasoning. In: Andersson ÅE, Sahlin N-E (eds) The complexity of creativity. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pietarinen AV (2011) Existential graphs: What a diagrammatic logic of cognition might look like. Hist Philos Logic 32(3):265–281MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peirce CS (1909) MS 619: 8. Studies in meaningGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peirce CS (1901) CP 2.778. Notes on ampliative reasoning. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 5. HUP, Cambridge, Mass, p 2Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paavola S (2011) Diagrams, iconicity, and abductive discovery. Semiotica 186:297–314Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peirce CS (1898) CP 7.498. In: Burks AW (ed) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 7. HUP, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peirce CS (1893) Qualitative logic, CP 7.451–2. In: Burks AW (ed) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 7. HUP, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peirce CS (1901) On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents especially from testimonies (logic of history), CP 7.218. In: Burks AW (ed) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 7. HUP, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gärdenfors P (2004) Conceptual spaces: the geometry of thought. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bruza P, Cole R, Song D, Bari Z (2006) Towards operational abduction from a cognitive perspective. Logic J IGPL 14(2):161–177MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Magnani L (2013) Thinking through drawing: diagram constructions as epistemic mediators in geometrical discovery. Knowl Eng Rev 28(3):303–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Douven I (2017) Abduction. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 edn). URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/abduction/
  25. 25.
    Minnameier G (2004) Peirce-suit of truth–why inference to the best explanation and abduction ought not to be confused. Erkenntnis 60(1):75–105MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paavola S (2006) Hansonian and Harmanian abduction as models of discovery. Int Stud Phil Sci 20(1):93–108MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campos D (2011) On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation. Synthese 180:419–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McAuliffe W (2015) How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation? Trans Charles S Peirce Soc 51:300–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peirce CS (1903) Harvard lectures on pragmatism: lecture VI, CP 5.171–172. In: Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 5. HUP, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Runco MA, Jaeger GJ (2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creat Res J 24(1):92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Reich Y, Subrahmanian E (2018) Design theory: a foundation of a new paradigm for design science and engineering. Res Eng Des 29(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stacey M, Lauche K (2005) Thinking and representing in design. In: Design process improvement. Springer, London, pp 198–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maier AM, Wynn DC, Howard TJ, Andreasen MM (2014) Perceiving design as modelling: a cybernetic systems perspective. In: An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, London, pp 133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cross N (2004) Expertise in design: an overview. Des Stud 25(5):427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creat Res J 4:123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2014) The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In: An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, London, pp 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2017) Design theory: methods and organization for innovation. Springer, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ullah AS, Rashid MM, Tamaki JI (2012) On some unique features of C-K theory of design. CIRP J Manufact Sci Technol 5(1):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kroll E, Condoor S, Jansson DG (2001) Innovative conceptual design: theory and application of parameter analysis. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kroll E, Le Masson P, Weil B (2014) Steepest-first exploration with learning-based path evaluation: uncovering the design strategy of parameter analysis with C-K theory. Res Eng Des 25:351–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kroll E, Farbman I (2016) Casting innovative aerospace design case studies in the parameter analysis framework to uncover the design process of experts. Des Sci 2Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Koskela L, Codinhoto R, Tzortzopoulos P, Kagioglou M (2014). The Aristotelian proto-theory of design. In: An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gedenryd H (1998) How designers work–making sense of authentic cognitive activities. Lund University, vol 75Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hintikka J, Remes U (1974) The method of analysis: its geometrical origin and its general significance. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johnson-Laird PN (2006) How we reason. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peirce CS (1903) Harvard lectures on pragmatism: lecture VII, CP 5.181. In: Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 5. HUP, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kroll E (2013) Design theory and conceptual design: contrasting functional decomposition and morphology with parameter analysis. Res Eng Des 24:165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    March L (1976) The logic of design and the question of value. In: March L (ed) The architecture of form. CUP, Cambridge, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Roozenburg NFM (1993) On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. Des Stud 14:4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dorst K (2011) The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des Stud 32:521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kroll E, Koskela L (2016) Explicating concepts in reasoning from function to form by two-step innovative abductions. AIEDAM 30:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK
  2. 2.ORT Braude CollegeKarmielIsrael

Personalised recommendations