IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v21y1994i7ps106-s116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • U Flemming

    (Department of Architecture and Engineering Design Research Center¶, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • U Flemming, 1994. "Get with the Program: Common Fallacies in Critiques of Computer-Aided Architectural Design," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 21(7), pages 106-116, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:21:y:1994:i:7:p:s106-s116
    DOI: 10.1068/b21S106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b21S106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b21S106?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:21:y:1994:i:7:p:s106-s116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.