An “Artificial Science” of Architecture – Philip Steadman

1. “In craft production and vernacular architecture new tools or buildings are produced by copying old ones, and the craftsman or woman may be unaware of why or how they function, just that they do work in practice. ”
   I’m slightly confused by this statement. Shouldn’t the craftsman understand how and why certain tools function because they are replicating it?
2. “One might even venture the proposition that more can be learned about the process of design of artefacts by studying those objects directly than by studying designers in action.” However these artefacts were chosen by the designers. Would studying the designers methodology also help give us insight in their process as well?
3. “Martin and March’s theoretical built forms were not just a random selection of geometrical solids: they were chosen carefully the way in which they satisfy the same two generic functions, while making use of land in distinctively different ways.” Does this mean that their findings only pertain to a specific category then? And may not be completely applicable to every building?

“Even More Than Architecture” – Richard Coyne

1. Coyne begins his article about how it is important and critical for the discipline to borrow from others. It “supports healthy and vital architecture research”. I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, coordinating with other fields helps broaden our field as well as others. Allowing designers  of all kinds to be able to really take on their responsibility within society.
2. “…the issue of what constitutes architectural research is decided dramatically by who i prepared to fund its projects, which journals or venues will it be published in…” Would this mean that some research may be bias or no?
3. “Study one and you’re studying them all.” So this would mean that if I were studying medicine, then I would understand architecture, art, sociology, etc  as well, but rather in a medicinal point of view?