I beg to disagree once more. There is no such thing as ‘science based design’ (this is actually one of the key learnings from the Ulm era). It is a category error to mistake the highly desirable empiricism in design for being scientific. There is science and there is design, both of which are incredibly valuable in their own right but fundamentally _different_. They differ in their core reasoning (analytical: deduction/induction vs. synthetical: abduction), they differ in their way of creating knowledge (Aicher’s ‘world as design’ relating design to both Darwinian evolutional fitness and Kant’s ‘Critique of Judgment’ with the principle of knowing _a posteriori_ might still be the best account on this), and they differ most of all in their intention: science is concerned about what _is_ and design about what _should be_. Dont get me wrong: count me all in for the impure realm of cross-fertilisation, let’s break down walls and silos, breed mongrels and bastards, let us pollute, mingle, dissolve etc. But let us do this with a fundamental understanding and deep appreciation of the innate unique qualities of all these disciplines, please.
