برای معماری ایرانی||||||||||||||For Iranian Architecture

خداحافظ

خداحافظ ای شعر شب‌های روشن
خداحافظ ای قصه عاشقانه
خداحافظ ای آبی روشن عشق
خداحافظ ای عطر شعر شبانه

خداحافظ ای همنشین همیشه
خداحافظ ای داغ بر دل نشسته
تو تنها نمی‌مانی ای مانده بی من
تو را می‌سپارم به د‌ل‌های خسته

تو را می‌سپارم به مینای مهتاب
تو را می‌سپارم به دامان دریا
اگر شب نشینم اگر شب شکسته
تو را می‌سپارم به رویای فردا

به شب می‌سپارم تو را تا نسوزد
به دل می‌سپارم تو را تا نمیرد
اگر چشمه واژه از غم نخشکد
اگر روزگار این صدا را نگیرد

خداحافظ ای برگ و بار دل من
خداحافظ ای سایه‌سار همیشه
اگر سبز رفتی اگر زرد ماندم
خداحافظ ای نوبهار همیشه

 

اهورا ایمان/ سلام آخر

+ دکتر مهندس نگار نصیری****** Negar Nassiri PH.D, M Arch ; ٢:۳٤ ‎ب.ظ ; سه‌شنبه ٢٧ اسفند ۱۳۸٧
    پيام هاي ديگران ()   

دفاع از یک رساله چیست؟

What is a thesis defense?

A thesis defense has two parts: a thesis and a defense. The second mistake many students make is not knowing what their thesis is. The third mistake is not knowing how to defend it. (The first mistake is described later.)

What is a thesis?

Your thesis is not your dissertation. Neither is it a one-liner about what you are doing. Your thesis is "a position or proposition that a person (as a candidate for scholastic honors) advances and offers to maintain by argument." [Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary] "I looked at how people play chess" is not a thesis; "people adapt memories of old games to play new games" is. A thesis has to claim something.

There are many kinds of claims. Most of the work around here is either design (you built an AI program or learning tool) or modelling (you have a theory of how something works). Such work usually supports one of the following kinds of claims:

  • X is a feasible way to do Y
  • X is a better way to do Y
  • doing Y requires X
  • people use X to do Y

where "X" is your model of memory, learning algorithm, authoring tool, learning environment, etc., and "Y" is a task or goal, such as understanding text, learning algebra, writing programs to teach algebra, etc.

Besides being a proposition, a thesis has to have another property: it must say something new. "Understanding natural language requires context" is not a thesis (except maybe in a linguistics department). "Algorithm X is a feasible mechanism for understanding anaphoric references in newspaper text" is. So is "context is not required for visual understanding."

What is a defense?

A defense presents evidence for a thesis. What kind of evidence is appropriate depends on what kind of thesis is being defended. There are very different defenses for each of the kinds of claims given above.

Thesis: X is a feasible way to do Y

One defense for this kind of claim is an analysis of the complexity, or completeness, or whatever, of the theoretical algorithm. In AI, the more common defense is based on empirical results from running a program. A good defense here means more than one example, and answers to questions such as the following. What are the capabilities and limits of your program? How often do the things that your program does come up in the real world? What's involved in extending it? If it's easy to extend, why haven't you? If your program is a piece of a larger system, how realistic are your assumptions about input and output?

Analogous questions arise in the design of learning environments. You should be able to argue that your environment can support learning in more than one specific arena, and what would be involved in implementing it elsewhere. You should be clear and specific about when it would not be a good approach.

Thesis: X is a better way to do Y

The same kind of defense applies here as in the previous case, but now serious comparisons with previous systems are required. In AI, can your program do the same examples the previous programs did, or can you make them do yours? Can you prove they couldn't do your examples? If you claim to be more efficient, what are you measuring?

In the learning sciences, what do you mean by "better" and how are you measuring it? Are you sure the other approaches wouldn't work just as well if they had you spending all that time on them?

Thesis: doing Y requires X

This is usually defended by a logical argument. It is usually very tough to do, even if the argument doesn't have to be formalized.

Thesis: people use X to do Y

Many students in AI make the mistake of picking a cognitive modelling thesis to defend, thinking that something that looks cognitively plausible is therefore OK. Defending a cognitive model requires serious experimental evidence. Selected excerpts from protocols and surveys of your officemates are not psychological evidence, no matter how much they might have inspired your work.

I have lots of theses in my dissertation. Which one should I pick for my defense?

Collecting enough evidence to really defend a thesis is hard. If you think you have a lot of theses, you probably just have a bunch of undefended claims. One good thesis, or two so-so theses, with adequate description and defense, is more than enough to fill up a dissertation.

I have the opposite problem. I don't think I have any thesis by these standards.

Highly unlikely. If you're bright, educated, and have worked hard on a topic for more than a year, you must have learned something no one else knew before.

The first mistake that AI students make is to think that a thesis has to be grander than the theory of relativity. A thesis should be new and interesting, but it doesn't have to change the foundations of all we believe and hold dear.

How do I pick my thesis to avoid these problems?

There's a mistaken view of thesis research that it starts with a thesis and then an investigation to prove or disprove the thesis. That only happens in fields that have matured to "filling in the blanks," and even then it only happens with advisors who like to stick to tried and true questions.

In young fields such as AI and the learning sciences, you'll never start with a claim. Very few of you will even get to start with a question! You start by exploring one or more problems in some task domain. You'll start with some initial ideas, naive or clever, and push them hard for a year or so. Then, you need to stop and think about what you've done and what you've learned. Among your accomplishments and experience, there will be several good candidate theses. Pick one. Test it out on your advisor and other faculty members. Test it out on other students. Watch out for the following flaws:

  • It takes half an hour or more for anyone to understand what your claim is. If that happens more than once, you don't know what your claim is yet.
  • Everyone thinks the claim is obvious. Maybe your claim is so general that it's vacuous. Can you formulate the opposite claim? Does anyone believe it could be true when you do?
  • No one think the claim matters. Maybe your claim is too specific. Who cares if you wrote a program and that program needs a particular data structure?

Once you refined your claim, now you can determine what kind of defense is appropriate for it and what more you need to do. This is where the psychologically hard part comes, because to create a defense for your thesis, you're going to have to attack it harder than anyone else. What happens if the thesis fails? Negate it and defend that! In a year or so of focussed research, you should be ready for a real thesis defense.

See how easy it is, once you know how?

http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck/defense.html

+ دکتر مهندس نگار نصیری****** Negar Nassiri PH.D, M Arch ; ۳:٠٤ ‎ب.ظ ; جمعه ٢۳ اسفند ۱۳۸٧
    پيام هاي ديگران ()   

چه زمان معماری ایران دارای کرسی های نظریه پردازی می شود؟

 معماری رشته ای جذاب و کاری با قابلیت های ارائه ایده های نو بسیار بالاست، که افزونی ها و کاستی هایش به شدت به سیاستها و عوامل اقتصادی و اجتماعی وابسته است.معماران بر اساس آموزش و تجربه یاد می گیرند و با استعدادهایشان زیباتر و بهتر می سازند.

 

اما چه زمان ایده ای نو وارد  معماری می شود و به عبارت بهتر چه زمانی یک معمار نظریه پرداز می شود؟

با اینکه در ظاهر معماری به ساخت و ساز منتهی می شود، اما تأثیرات فراوان روانی و اجتماعی آن سبب ساز معانی دیگری برای آن است که نیاز به کنکاش و یافتن دارد و اینکه معماری صرفا با دانستن چگونه طرح کردن یا چگونه ساختن بتواند تأثیر گذار بر جریانی نوین باشد، منطقی به نظر نمی آید.

 

اما یک معمار برای نظریه پردازی نیاز به دانستن چه علوم دیگری دارد؟

آنچه از تجربیات موجود به دست می آید، فلسفه، جامعه شناسی، روانشناسی، ریاضیات و علوم شناختی تأثیر زیادی بر نظریه پردازی های معمارانه داشته اند، اما آیا چنین علومی جایگاهی در سرفصل دروس رشته معماری داشته اند؟

با نگاهی به سرفصل های تنظیم شده در دروس معماری ایران، جایگاه قابل ملاحظه ای برای این نوع علوم در نظر گرفته نشده است و صرفا در دوره های فوق لیسانس و دکترا به شکل محدودی به آنان توجه می شود.

 

اما آیا جریان معماری امروز ایران نیاز به عرصه های نظریه پردازی و نظریه پردازانی دانشمند ندارد؟

آیا برای 20 یا 30 سال آینده جامعه دانشگاهی ایران کرسی هایی برای معماران نظریه پرداز در نظر گرفته نشده است؟ آنچه که امروز می بینیم برخورد سطحی در انتخاب اساتید دروس و عدم توجه به تربیت نسل جوان نظریه پردازان است که سرمایه های دانشگاهی 20 سال آینده ایران و داعیه داران کرسی های نظریه پردازی آینده خواهند بود.

 اگر این جریان امروز راه خود را نیابد، آیا امید به آینده امان دورتر نخواهد شد؟

و اینکه چرا امروز ارتباط ما با جامعه بین المللی معماری کمرنگ شده و در این چند ساله کنفرانسی بین المللی با حضور گسترده اندیشمندان و نظریه پردازان معماری دنیا برگزار نشده است؟

آیا جامعه علمی معماری در رکود به سر نمی برد؟

 

آیا نه اینکه می باید امروز دغدغه آینده امان را داشته باشیم و ایران را وارد جریان های تأثیر گذار معماری دنیا کنیم؟

 

 

انگیزه تقریر این یادداشت با کامنت دلسوزانه دوست اندیشمندم خانم دکتر شاهچراغی به من داده شد.

 

سپاس

+ دکتر مهندس نگار نصیری****** Negar Nassiri PH.D, M Arch ; ٩:۱٦ ‎ب.ظ ; چهارشنبه ٧ اسفند ۱۳۸٧
    پيام هاي ديگران ()