Get with the Program: Common Fallacies in Critiques of Computer-Aided Architectural Design

U Flemming
Additional contact information
U Flemming: Department of Architecture and Engineering Design Research Center¶, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Environment and Planning B, 1994, vol. 21, issue 7, S106-S116

Abstract: This paper introduces four common fallacies that are often developed explicitly or implied when approaches toward computer-aided architectural design are criticized from a broader ‘philosophical’ perspective. It contains suggestions of what the author considers more fruitful directions for research in connection with the issues raised. The first two fallacies are very general. The first of these treats design as a monolithic, indivisible process that cannot be decomposed and thus partially supported. The second one insists that computer aids support current practice as it stands and rejects approaches that challenge that practice. The last two fallacies are very specific. The first of these occurs when shape grammars and related mechanisms are criticized for being based on a ‘linguistic analogy’. The last one deals with a specific version of appeals to authority that treats Heidegger as the ultimate arbiter in resolving philosophical issues in connection with computer-aided architectural design.

Date: 1994
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b21S106 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envirb:v:21:y:1994:i:7:p:s106-s116

DOI: 10.1068/b21S106

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning B
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().