An enquiry into Enquiry Logics of enquiry and their implication in the discipline of Urbanism A2U090, Methodology for Urbanism
Zhujun He
Rakesh Naduvath Mana
4418239 violet9118@gmail.com
4418093 rakeshnm@gmail.com May, 2015
Abstract –To seek information through questioning the world around is an innate quality of humans. This paper looks at how this skill of seeking information through questioning or enquiring is used in the scientific method to investigate and/or generate knowledge within the academia and practise of Urbanism. The first part of the paper defines enquiry and the three fundamental modes of reasoning in enquiry, as per the pragmatic philosophical notions introduced by Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914). Further, how these logics of enquiry are applicable in the research and practise of the discipline of Urbanism is explored. How these skills of enquiring and reasoning are developed through the projects in the master’s track of Urbanism at TU Delft is reflected. The paper also looks at the implication of the logics of enquiry in the process of design thinking which is quintessential in the academia and profession of Urbanism Key words –enquiry, urbanism, induction, deduction, abduction, creative design thinking 1 Introduction The main question that this paper addresses is how the different logics of enquiry are applicable in the research and practice of the discipline of urbanism. To answer this question we explore the existing literature regarding the different logics of enquiry. Further, the distinct characteristics of the different methods of enquiry are examined. The paper, then, looks at the implication of the logics of enquiry in the field of academia and practice of the field of urbanism. This is explained with respect to the urbanism course at TU delft, and how these skills of reasoning are encouraged and developed through the education process. Further, the role of different logics of enquiry in the design process is examined.
The paper concludes by remarking the importance of understanding the different logics of enquiry in the academia and profession of Urbanism, owing to its diverse areas of knowledge, audience and collaborators. 2 Understanding enquiry and different logics of enquiry The philosophical tradition that emphasized on enquiry and practical experience to understand the truth was the American pragmatism that began with the work of Charles Sanders Pierce(1839-1914). It states that we enquire anything to reduce doubt and reach a state of belief which we call knowledge. Thus, this philosophy has direct implications in research driven fields that generate new knowledge and question the existing ones.
1
One of the philosophers of Pragmatism, John Dewey, defined enquiry as ‘the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole’ (Dewey, 1938). Being a proponent of this philosophy, his definition of enquiry is influenced by the utilitarian notion ‘in which everything has a purpose, and the purpose of each thing is the first thing we should try to note about it’(Rescher 2012). 2.1 Different logics of enquiry Deriving concepts from the classical sources of Aristotle, Pierce argued that there are three fundamental logics in enquiry, namely, deduction, abduction, and induction ‘These three processes typically operate in a cyclic fashion, systematically operating to reduce the uncertainties and the difficulties that initiated the enquiry in question, and in this way, to the extent that enquiry is successful, leading to an increase in knowledge or in skills’ (Smith, 2015). There are fundamental differences between the three methods of enquiry. In Deduction, we know the rule and cause of a situation, with which we can deduce the effect. For instance, if we know the rule that flu causes fever, and in a given case if John has flu, then we can deduce that he has fever.
cause. This is the method used in diagnosis by medical practitioners. If we take the same rule that flu causes fever, and in a given case that John has fever, then we can abduct that he has flu.
Figure II Abuctive reasoning (Source: Authors)
In the case of Induction, we know the cause and effect of a situation from which we induce a rule. Taking the same example of John has flu and fever; we can induce a rule that flu causes fever.
Figure III Inductive Reasoning (Source: Authors)
Figure I Deductive Reasoning (Source: Authors)
Similarly, in abduction, we know the rule and effect of a situation, with which we abduct its
To summarize, there are three logics of enquiry in which abduction plays the role of generating new hypotheses; deduction functions as evaluating the hypotheses; and induction is justifying of the hypothesis with empirical data (Staat, 1993). In other words, abduction and deduction contribute to our conceptual
2
understanding of a phenomenon, while the logic of induction provides experiential support to abstract knowledge (Hausman, 1993). 2.2 Characteristics of different logics of enquiry The primary difference between the three types of reasoning is whether the knowledge or belief acquired is true or approximate. Amongst the three, only deduction can be exact/accurate because it draws true conclusions from true premises. Both deduction and abduction are approximate as it relies on the perceiver’s judgment and evaluations which are fallible. This is due to the fact that deduction, ideally, interacts only with elements/factors within the domain of the reasoning agent. Both induction and abduction interacts with elements which is broader than the capacity of the finite resources of both human and machine. In other words, deduction can be rendered through the internal processes of the reasoning agent, while the other two demands a constant interaction with the outside world. Thus, the approximations of induction and abduction are appropriate only with reference to the context of use and derived fittingly with regard to the purpose of reasoning. In classical terminology, those reasoning that depend on the context and the purpose of judgment are considered to have elements of ‘art’, as compared to the demonstrative reasoning of science. Moreover, the renderings of the abductive and inductive reasoning are considered as expressive judgments, compared to the deductive reasoning which is considered as logical judgments. In other words it means that, ‘only deductive reasoning can be reduced to an exact theoretical science, while the practice of any empirical science will always remain to some degree an art’ (Smith, 2012). 3 Urbanism and different logics of enquiry Urbanism deals with a wide spectrum of subjects from the physical sciences, social sciences through to the different methods of design. This demands a good understanding of diverse subjects and the ability to traverse across different thought processes from that
concerning pure science to that of art. Understanding and generating knowledge within these different subjects necessitates the need for the use of each of the logics of enquiry, independent or combined to acquire knowledge, information and to analyze and solve problems. 3.1 Enquiry Skills and MSc Urbanism at TU Delft. The education system at TU Delft provides opportunities and tools to develop these skills of enquiry to apply in the research and practice of Urbanism. The application of different logics of enquiry varied between different projects. For instance, in the first quarter project the emphasis was on studying the morphological development of the city to identify and optimize the spatial problems/defects of the built environment. These problems framed through our diagnosis of the form/shape of city became the basis of the proposed solution. We employed abductive reasoning to predict the cause of the form/shape of the present city. The different hypothesis abducted was tested and verified using the historic maps of the city of different times as reference. This process of confirmation of our hypothesis from reliable source can be considered as a process of deduction. In this project, the metaphor of an Urban designer as a doctor to detect/diagnose problems of an urban development was used to generate and validate the design solution. Later in the third quarter, the project demanded the use of all the three logics of enquiry to develop a conceptual understanding of a phenomenon and validating the abstract knowledge into a concrete one. The project was to develop design solution for high density housing in Singapore. On studying the form of the city plan, we used abductive inference to hypothesize that the water bodies of the cities were protected/safe-guarded using the primary transport infrastructure of the city.
3
These two projects during our master’s education in the Urbanism department of TU Delft show how different enquiry skills were developed to investigate and research, and the education’s emphasis on scientific reasoning and analytical arguments to solve the problems.
Figure IV Abducting the hypothesis that the transport infrastructure was used to safeguard/protect water catchment area. (Source: Authors)
This hypothesis was validated, through the process of deduction, when we discovered through the collected information that Singapore is a city developed on the ring city of concept, in which a ring of development were planned around a central water catchment area.
Figure V Deducing /Evaluating the hypothesis using the existing body of knowledge (Concept plan of Singapore 1965) (Source: http://www.nodeurbandesign.com/journal/urbandesign-2/singapore-a-green-city-of-the-future-3/)
Further during our site visit, through observation, it was confirmed that the rain water catchments being the only sources of natural fresh water for the city they had safeguarded it using the Mass Rapid transit system and fences to restrict human access to the water reservoirs. Here, the logic of abduction and deduction contributed to our conceptual understanding of the relationship between the transport infrastructure and water catchment, while the logic of induction provided experiential (through observation) support our abstract knowledge.
3.2 Enquiry skills and Design process The conventional reasoning techniques of induction, deduction and abduction inferences can be used to generate knowledge, validate results and to solve problems, given that at least two of the factors of cause, effect, rule elements are known. But when we have to work with an aspired outcome (effect) and the what (cause) or the working principle (rule) of the situation is not given, design thinking needs to be introduced.
Figure VI Design/Framing enquiry
The major challenge of this enquiry is that we have to work with a desired outcome while there is no trusted rule or working principle that could lead us to it. In this case, we create a working principle, through reasoning close to induction, and an outcome (effect) in parallel. Performing this action of creating a thing and its way of working in parallel is the core idea of design thinking. These double creative steps will propel designers to come up with more than one possibility and test them in what may look like a hit and miss process. This process of deriving solutions, analyzing and evaluating them to reach the optimal solution or desired outcome is the fundamental of design thinking (Dorst, 2006).
4
This makes the design process different from the other forms of enquiry based on analysis (deduction, induction) and problem solving (abduction).But that does not mean that the distinction is definite. ‘It is a mix of different kinds of solution focused thinking (Abduction), which includes both problem solving and a form of design that involves re-framing of the problem situation (in a co-evolution process). And it also contains quite a bit of analytical reasoning, as rigorous deduction is needed to check if the design solutions will work’ (Dorst, 2006). 4 Conclusions The paper looked at the distinct characteristics of the fundamental logics of enquiry of induction, abduction and deduction. It was seen that in most cases of enquiry for investigation, research or problem solving, each of these methods of enquiry operate independently, in combination or in cyclical process. The field of Urbanism deals with a wide variety of subjects from physical science, social sciences to design and art. Understanding and generating knowledge within these different subjects necessitates the need for the use of each of the logics of enquiry, independent or combined to acquire knowledge, information and to analyze and solve problems. Design process itself can be considered as a form of enquiry, and reveal the presence of the fundamental methods of enquiry within its process. Therefore, in the context of the field Urbanism, being aware of the characteristics of enquiry can help researchers and problem solvers to move from the enquiry state into the knowledge or solution state more effectively.
Dewey, J., 1938. Logic : Theory of Inquiry. [Online] Available at: (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/osullis/spring07 /courses/page0/history/documents_files/Dew ey_pattern%20of%20inquiry.pdf) Dorst, K. 2006, ‘Design Problems and Design Paradoxes’, Design Issues, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 4-17. Rescher, N. (2012). Pragmatism: The Restoration of its Scientific Roots. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Schön D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, Temple Smith, London. Smith, J., 2015. Google Books. [Online] Available at: https://books.google.nl/books?id=MrENBwA AQBAJ&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&d [Accessed 01 May 2015].
References Almeder, R. 1980. The philosophy of Charles S. Peirce: A critical introduction. New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield. Anderson, D. R. 1987. Creativity and the philosophy pf C. S. Peirce. Boston: Martinus Nijoff Publishers.
5