Abstract:
It is now approaching 30 years since the publication of Thomas Nickles¿ classic paper `What is a problem that we may solve it?¿ [1981]. While directed specifically at philosophy of science and epistemology, Nickles¿ observations on and speculations about the nature of problems offer a particular and potentially informative vantage point for [re]viewing so-called design problems. Having previously declared my discomfort with the conventional `design = problem solving¿ view of design activity, yet having elected, pro tem, to retain the problem/solution language frame in order more easily to demonstrate that conventional wisdom has misunderstood just what problem it is that the designer `solves¿ [Harfield 2007a; 2007b], the current paper revisits the question of `what is a problem¿ from a more fundamental level.
