【作者】 杨健；

【导师】 戴志中；

【作者基本信息】 重庆大学 ， 建筑设计及其理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 一个完整的方法论需要两个层次,其一:对于方法的认识,其二:具体的方法。本文的内容是关于建筑学理论的形成方法。所谓建筑学的理论是指建筑历史上形成的具体的理论文本,其内容虽然包罗万象,但是并非没有核心,本文注意到在建筑学理论历史上存在着一些支配性的、跨越了具体文本的观念,这些观念往往位于理论的核心,因此,本文就经由这些观念的考察去深入建筑学理论的核心。以往对这些观念的研究往往局限于具体的文本,很难体现这些观念的实际形成过程。既然这些支配性的观念是贯穿文本的,那么,形成它们的具体方法也应该是贯穿文本的,更进一步,对于方法的认识同样也应该是贯穿文本的,因此本文将建筑学理论的具体形成方法和相应认识视为支配性的观念,提出用观念史的方法来梳理西方建筑学部分理论的具体形成方法和相应认识,从而来反思我国建筑理论形成中的具体问题。观念史的方法强调将观念从具体文本中离析出来进行跨越文本的综合梳理。本文通过将建筑学理论体系形成的主流认识——形而上学的命题化认识与建筑学实际理论形成的具体现象相比较,发现建筑学实际理论的形成过程相对于命题证明的过程来说,更类似于生物进化与知识进化的过程。进而离析出了对于理论形成方法的支配性认识:即形而上学的命题化认识和知识进化观。然后,本文从相应认识渗入到的认知心理学与认知哲学中,联系建筑学的具体理论现象,综合提出了知识进化观形成建筑学理论的有机过程,这样,就完成了方法论的第一层次,对方法的认识。随后,本文来到方法论的第二层次:具体的方法。因为前面提出的对于方法的认识并没有遍历所有的建筑学理论,它只是根据一些理论现象归纳而来,它只是一个假设,还需要在进一步的事实中进行检验。按照波普尔的理论形成四段式,提出问题、提出假设、检验假设、提出新问题的程序,所做的工作只是位于提出问题和提出假设的部分,我们还需要具体去检验假设与提出新的问题。因此,本文随后一边在具体的理论中检验假设,一边在这个过程中重新定位体系中的具体方法,从而形成了完整的方法体系。根据建筑学理论中“命题化”体系的具体矛盾,本文进一步深化了核心假设,相应地形成了本文的核心问题:建筑学的理论,是通过命题化的方式建立的呢?还是通过知识进化而来?建筑学理论,包括两大部分:设计理论和研究理论。在上面提出问题和假设后,本文通过文本间观念的相互比较,在具体方法的论述中检验假设,在反对单纯“命题化”体系的过程中重新定位“知识进化”的具体方法。按照知识进化观,知识的进化需要变异和选择两个部分,论文的论述也相应地分为以下两个部分。第一部分,设计理论是上述文本中关于设计的理论,通过观念的比较,本文指出,对于设计理论的形成方法,我们应该关心知识的创造和理解,也就是知识进化相应的变异部分。在这一部分,论文重新定位了具体形成设计理论的方法,这些方法都是知识之间的投射关系,即“隐喻、类比和模型”三个具体方法,其目的是获得理解,即将默会中形成的知识投射到熟悉的、明确的知识上获得理解的方法。在重新定位这三种方法的同时,论文指出了在这三种方法中存在的“非命题化”和“非逼真性”的矛盾,论文指出,正是因为被“命题化”体系所忽视的默会知识的存在导致了这些矛盾。由于设计理论形成过程具有的默会属性,使用上述三个方法不仅只是简单地套用方法,还需要相应的认识配合,因此,在该部分还介绍了对于默会知识和明确知识的各种认识,对于建筑学理论性质、设计理论性质以及对于创新的认识。第二部分,研究理论是上述文本中关于研究的理论,通过观念的比较,本文指出,对于研究理论的形成方法,我们应该关心人们如何选择知识并增长知识,也就是知识进化相应的选择部分。基于知识进化观,研究理论的作用是为下一次创造提供支持,为个体的创造提供相关的环境,因而它追求的是体系化和稳定性,层次结构是进化中形成的系统的、稳定的结构,这种结构在客观物质(实践)中存在,在理论中存在,形成了知识编织的环境。在这一部分,论文重新定位了具体形成研究理论的方法,这些方法都是知识在层次之间的编织关系,即“还原、上索和本层的分析和建构”三个具体方法,这些方法将新产生的明确知识编织到现有的体系中、或者“自我作古”,将现有体系的部分编织到自身以求得体系化和稳定性。在重新定位这三种方法的同时,论文也指出了在这三种方法中存在的“非命题化”、“非逼真性”的矛盾,由于建筑学理论具有跨越多层次知识的特性,加上近可分解性原理,导致了对整体的拆解总是要损失一些信息,在研究分析时,只能对于短时间的计划和规则有效,而对于长时间的计划和规则来说,则需要更多地分析部分之间的相互作用才有可能得到,但是,有限理性的建筑师常常不具有这样的计算能力。因而,对于建筑学跨越层次的分析研究,只能是以满意度和短期目标为主。同样,由于研究理论形成过程具有的近可分解性,使用上述三个方法不仅只是简单地套用方法,还需要相应的认识配合,因此,在本部分还介绍了对于层次结构和近可分解性的认识,对于建筑学的规则收敛于价值,而非真理的认识以及对于规则在学院体系中地位的认识。通过以上两个部分,论文在具体的理论论述和对话中检验了知识进化观并得出了具体方法。随后,论文提出了新的问题,这些方法能够统一吗?经由前面的讨论,论文指出了设计和研究中知识创造、理解、选择、增长、到再创造的螺旋上升全过程,这个过程将设计理论形成的方法和研究理论形成的方法统一到一个过程中,这就是建筑理论的形成过程。同样,这个过程中含有可以言叙和不可言叙的知识,因而,它不是上述方法的简单加和,也不是某个具体可言叙的方法,它只能是一个同时含有具体方法和对方法本身认识的平台——即传统方法论的概念。这个平台就是知识进化观,在具体形态上,它和SECI模型(知识螺旋模型)吻合,和“以设计为研究”的思想吻合,由于三者都共同指向知识的螺旋上升过程。它们组成了建筑理论形成的平台。这些方法以及对于方法的认识更接近建筑学本身的理论形成过程,对于解除建筑学理论上的命题和逻辑束缚,厘清建筑学中实践和理论、设计和研究的关系、以及恢复建筑学科的创造性和实践引导、而非理论引导的特性具有一定的启发作用,对实际的理论形成过程提供了一定的操作提示,同时,在我国积极探讨形成自身理论的大背景下,以上对于方法的认识和相应的方法定位提供了切入该讨论的一个途径。更多还原

【Abstract】 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.更多还原