it is possible to discuss theory making in architecture through the “flow” from knowledge, discourse and praxis. first of all knowledge in architecture is problematic. whether we accept architectural design needs knowledge we have to indicate the sources. it could be both scientific and philosophic. second one includes the experimental process of our behaviors and perceptions. since the knowledge exists, the critical thinking constructs discourse. this is more likely to explain something than prove something. so it can be perceived as a method to finding a way for doing it in architectural practices .
praxis is less likely to applying the rules directly in architecture but choosing the path during the process of scanning both “presentative” and “non-presentative”. because representative in a relation what exist in reality it has a “real” challenge with the perception of daily routines or harmony/disharmony of the practices. non-presentative is more interesting in that there is no interface related to our minds to outer world while architecture construct the built environment.
is it possible to make theories for architecture without experiment?
we can’t answer a question without emphasizing the memetics. most of the time design and theory derive from these “social genes”. or it can be exciting to choose the itten’s method  to criticize the discussion which widely take place architectural production context: mind or body/experiences.
 itten’s method for drawing a circle in bauhaus basic course was to draw a circle with their arms and the whole torso by students, which produce bodily experience and its mental reflections.
*seminar was given by the lecturer , belkıs uluoglu in faculty of architecture, taskisla (140922)