Abstract
Design epistemology has long been divided by apparent dualities, such as science versus art and rationality versus intuition, which resist resolution within existing frameworks. This paper argues these are false dichotomies and that Critical Rationalism (Popper, 1963/2002, 1972; Deutsch, 1997, 2011) provides a universal account of knowledge creation that explains the distinctive character of design without requiring a separate epistemology. Knowledge is conjectural and fallible: progress occurs not through justification or verification, but through iterative creative conjecture and — crucially — error-correction via criticism. Deutsch's account of knowledge as physically instantiated information, subject to the same logic of variation and error-correction found in computation and biological evolution, further clarifies how design knowledge is created and improved. Comparison with pragmatism, constructivism, and phenomenology shows that each captures important features of design but none adequately explains how objective progress occurs. Implications for design practice, education, and research methodology are explored.
Keywords
Design Epistemology; Design Knowledge; Critical Rationalism; Design Theory
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1608
Citation
Digby, J. (2026) Does knowledge in design require a distinct epistemology? A Critical Rationalist perspective, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1608
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Does knowledge in design require a distinct epistemology? A Critical Rationalist perspective
Design epistemology has long been divided by apparent dualities, such as science versus art and rationality versus intuition, which resist resolution within existing frameworks. This paper argues these are false dichotomies and that Critical Rationalism (Popper, 1963/2002, 1972; Deutsch, 1997, 2011) provides a universal account of knowledge creation that explains the distinctive character of design without requiring a separate epistemology. Knowledge is conjectural and fallible: progress occurs not through justification or verification, but through iterative creative conjecture and — crucially — error-correction via criticism. Deutsch's account of knowledge as physically instantiated information, subject to the same logic of variation and error-correction found in computation and biological evolution, further clarifies how design knowledge is created and improved. Comparison with pragmatism, constructivism, and phenomenology shows that each captures important features of design but none adequately explains how objective progress occurs. Implications for design practice, education, and research methodology are explored.