Forming Methods Of Architectural Theory

A complete methodology requires two levels: Firstly, the cognition of the method, and the other: specific method.This article is about forming methods of architectural theory which are specific texts in architectural history, through covered wide range, architectural theory can not be considered without core. The article noted that in the history of architectural theory, there are some dominant ideas which crossed concrete text; these ideas are often located in the heart of the theory, therefore, in this paper, we try to reach the core of the theory of architecture by analyzing these ideas.In the past, the study of these ideas are often limited to a specific text, is difficult to reflect the actual formation of these ideas. Since these dominant ideas are beyond the text, then the formation of their specific methods should also do. Furthermore, the method of cognition is also the same, the paper look specific methods and corresponding cognitions as dominant ideas, then history of ideas were proposed as a method to organize the theory of architectural in western world partly, to get concrete forming method and the corresponding cognition, so to reflect specific problems in our architectural theory .History of ideas approach emphasizes detach ideas from a specific text to combing them. In this paper, we compare specific phenomenon with the mainstream understanding of the formation of the architectural theory (a proposition of metaphysical knowledge) and found that the actual theory of architecture in relation to the formation is more similar to the knowledge of biological evolution and knowledge evolution。Thus we isolated the dominant ideas for the formation of the theory, which can be called as metaphysical proposition and knowledge evolution.Then, the papers contact specific phenomenon in the theory of architecture from the corresponding disciplines which is cognitive psychology and cognitive philosophy, Scalability put forward the organic process which is about the formation of architectural theory by knowledge evolution, so we completed the first level of methodology, the method of cognition.Subsequently, we came to the second level of methodology: specific methods. Because the previous cognition proposed for the methods does not traverse all of the architectural theory, it is only based on theoretical induction from phenomena, it's just an assumption which need to be tested by facts after that. According to Popper's procedures, which is ask questions, make hypothesis, test assumptions and raise new issues, what had been done is first two parts, we also need to examine the specific assumptions and raise new questions. Therefore, this article followed by testing hypotheses in specific theories while re-positioning specific method in the system to form a complete methodology.According to specific conflicts in the proposition system , this paper has further deepened the core assumptions and the corresponding form the core problem: the theory of architecture, is shaped through thesis-oriented approach ? Or through the evolution of knowledge?Architectural theory is composed with two parts: design theory and research theory, After proposing question and assumption, this paper examines the assumption in the specific method's elaboration, appearing the specific methods of"the knowledge evolution"in the course of the opposing pure"the proposition"system. According to the knowledge evolution view, the knowledge evolution needs two parts which is the variation and choice, the paper's elaboration also correspondingly divides into the following two parts.The first part is about forming methods of design theory, which is also a part of variation in knowledge evolution.In this part of the paper presents a specific method of forming design theory, "metaphor, analogy and model," they are all three projection of the relationship between knowledge and its purpose is to obtain comprehension, which is by projecting the tacit knowledge onto the the familiar/ explicit knowledge .By proposing these three methods, the paper pointed out the contradictions which existed in the "non-proposition" and "non-realistic", papers pointed out that it was because of the existence of tacit knowledge which was neglected by "propositions" system has led to these contradictions.Since the formation of design theory has the tacit attributes, using above three methods is not just simply apply the method, but also need appropriate cognition, so in this section also describes cognition about the tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge in a variety of awareness, about the nature of architectural theory, design theory and innovation.The second part is about forming methods of research theory, which is also a part of choice in knowledge evolution. According to knowledge evolution, the role of research theory is to provide a support for the next creation and environment for the individual's creation, so it pursuit of the systematic and stability, hierarchical is a systematic and stability structure formed in the evolution , the structure is existed in objective materials (practices) and theories, which formed a environment of knowledge weaving.In this part of the paper presents specific methods forming research theory,"reduction, reverse reduction and analysis and construction in the layer", they are all weaving relationship among levels, which is the methods about to wove emerging explicit knowledge into the existing system, or " self-contained " by waving some of the existing system into its own in order to achieve stability and systematization.By proposing these three methods, the paper also pointed out the contradictions which existed in the "non-proposition" and "non-realistic", due to the knowledge of architectural theory cross multiple levels, coupled with principle of nearly decomposable, lead to that when dismantling of the whole always lose some information, so in research and analysis, only short-term plans and rules is valid, and the plans and rules for the long run, it may be possible by analyzing much of the interaction between the parts, but the limited rationality of architects often do not have such computing power. Thus, for architectural analysis across levels, we can only keep satisfaction and short-term goals as main purpose.Similarly, as the course of forming research theory has a principle of nearly decomposable, using the above three methods is not just simply apply the method, but also need appropriate cognition, therefore, in this section also describes the structure for the hierarchical and principle of nearly decomposable, and the cognition about architectural rules converges to the value, rather than knowledge of the truth and the status of rules in college system.Through the two parts before, the papers test knowledge evolution in theoretical discussion and dialogue in the evolutionary and get specific methods, subsequently, the paper presents new problems, can these methods be unified?By discuss before,the paper pointed out that in the course of design and research knowledge experienced a spiral which contained creation, understanding, choice, growth and re-creation, this process unified methods forming design theory and research theory into a whole; this is the course of forming architectural theory. Again, this process contain knowledge of explicit and tacit, therefore, it is not a simple increase by above method, nor is it a specific method by explicit knowledge, which can only be one platform which contain specific methods and corresponding cognition at the same time, that is, the concept of the traditional methodology. This platform is the knowledge evolution, in specific form; it fit with SECI model and "research by design", because all three have a common point of knowledge spiral process. They formed a platform for the formation of architectural theory.These methods and corresponding cognitions compared with the "propositions" system are much more closer to the actual formation process of architectural theory, they can inspire us for lifting of the propositions and logical constraints in architectural theory, clarifying the relationship between practice and theory/design and research of architecture, and restoring the nature of architecture which ledged by creation and practice rather than theories, they also provide a degree of operational tips in actual formation process of architectural theory. At the same time, they provide a way to cut into the discussion which is about to actively exploring and forming our theories in cognition of method and specific method.