Get with the program: common fallacies in critiques of computer-aided architectural design

This paper introduces four common fallacies that are often developed explicitly or implied when approaches toward computer-aided architectural design are criticized from a broader 'philosophical' perspective. It contains suggestions of what the author considers more fruitful directions for research in connection with the issues raised. The first two fallacies are very general. The first of these treats design as a monolithic, indivisible process that cannot be decomposed and thus partially supported. The second one insists that computer aids support current practice as it stands and rejects approaches that challenge that practice. The last two fallacies are very specific. The first of these occurs when shape grammars and related mechanisms are criticized for being based on a 'linguistic analogy'. The last one deals with a specific version of appeals to authority that treats Heidegger as the ultimate arbiter in resolving philosophical issues in connection with computer-aided architectural design.