Re: Comments on http://jamesshore.com/Blog/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-Agile.html
For example
Well, okay, but Agile is starting to sound a lot more like religious rhetoric than an engineering practice.
and
Insert compelling argument here.
It is a religion.
Agile is not a religion, however, both Agile and religions are non-ideas. Also referred to as the third value of the propositional truth trichotomy, “not even false”, non-terminating computation, the bottom value, unfalsifiable, or if you prefer, outright nonsense. All religions and Agile (and Scrum and REST and SOA and… need I go on?) fall into this broader category. It might be healthy to call this category “religion”, but many observers – at least in my dealings – won’t understand why you have shifted to this consistent definition.
Hitherto Agile and religions exhibit common traits; ill-definition (you know the real Agile or are you a real Muslim?), sub-cultures in conflict (religion implies war), extreme absurdity in contrast to a mild absurdity (an invisible sky daddy watching everything we do, whose son died for sins…), cult leaders able to alter the course of the flock and cognitive dissonance – holding two otherwise immediately apparent logically contradicting positions at once.
I’m happy to hear this pseudo-science is falling – its absence is an improvement for the industry and the quality of software development. However, the concern is that it will be replaced by another non-concept for the scientific-illiterates to sustain their well-intentioned misguidance.
History tells us that its downfall is not an improvement. After all, what was immediately before the current Abrahamic false ideas? The creation of the universe and therefore, the first religions? No, I don’t think so either – I don’t think anybody does 
So you’ve perhaps got some ideas for a sensible and scientific way to go about managing ridiculous people creating ridiculous software for ridiculous clients for ridiculous reasons?
The actual op-ed was written by someone who has Been There and Done That, and it shows. The comment was written by someone who has little, or limited, engineering experience, and it shows.
The real story here is that anything which achieves fad status is doomed to be at best half-understood.
“Scala, atheist’s choice”
Pseudonym,
I can understand how someone who has a thorough understanding of the mystical notion of “Agile” may mistakenly conclude “it is just another religion”. They are almost right – it only takes a more concise definition for religion, one that is logically consistent (in contrast to the one in common use).
travis,
No, your question begs the question.
@Tony: His question begs the question… whereas your post just crows the failings of agile but is completely devoid of substance and provides no alternatives. I want my two minutes back.
It’s funny how agile became a nuisance to developers. “Most” people talking about agile, which I call “Agile fanatics” are not “real” developers.
Manager : In here we do TDD, we are true believers, amen. By the way, did you solve bug XX?
Developer : bug is solved a = 1, instead of a = null
IT manager : Are you sure that it works, could you write a unit test? Can you stress test it? How does it scale under 1000 requests? Will it prevent the application from working?
Developer : Well 100%. It doesn’t require a unit test
IT manager : Do you understand TDD? We write unit tests for each bug.
Developer : …
John Doe
Senior C# Developer
Microsoup Corporation
Tony:
Someone who has a thorough understanding of how people customarily misapply Agile could indeed mistakenly conclude that. Having said that, you do have a point, but for completeness, I should point out that those who follow Agile religiously tend to have limited engineering experience too.
If all you do is buzzword-compiant enterprise stuff, you can grow to think that Agile solves all problems in the world. Those who push Agile at the top are pretty quick to admit that it’s only useful for certain classes of software engineering project. It’s pretty useless, for example, for anything safety-critical.
And here, BTW, the analogy with religion is more apt than you think. If you compare the typical founder of a major world religion (e.g. Yeshua ben Yosef, Siddhārtha Gautama) with the typical follower of said religion, you’ll find they have very little in common. A typical founder of a world religion usually says a lot of intelligent stuff that everyone can agree with, and a typical follower… uhm… can be contrasted.
Much the same is true of software development practises.
I also happen to agree with Caligula. It’s very easy to mindlessly mock something, but it’s much harder to come up with rational criticism. It’s also very easy for an outsider to tell the difference.
Hi Pseudonym,
The problem I have with your suggestion regarding criticism (and that of Caligula) is that it assumes Agile even exists. I put it to you that it does not exist (therefore I am not criticising anything, except perhaps, its non-existence). Let me explain. To give another example, Christianity also does not actually exist. You will no doubt be quick to point to the many people who call themselves Christians and (claim to) follow the teachings of a specific book.
These claims are false and are a classic example of double-think. If Christianity were to be defined in a logically consistent manner, it loses its elevated status. The same for Agile. You might hear critics say things like “it’s just having no meetings” or “it’s just giving more control to the developers” and there are many other “it’s just…” claims. These claimants are trying to reduce the Agile (non-concept) to an actual concept with consistent definition. They are often a little off-base, but they are much closer than Agile proponents are.
Agile proponents are quick to reject these claims by shifting the goal posts. The definition never sticks, because the moment it does, the illusion collapses. So the question “What do I propose as an alternative?” is unanswerable – first you must show me that Agile even exists (I am confident you will fail in this case because I am very well versed in this particular false idea). That there are lots of people parroting the word adds zero weight to the existing evidence.
Ill-definition is a key trait to the survival of non-ideas such as Agile (and Christianity). There is no “real” Agile process/concept/idea just like there is no “real” Christianity false idea (though lots of people claiming otherwise). No amount of combined wishing by you and/or I is going to alter this fact.
In any case, I was only intending to convey my hopeful sentiment for an improvement in software development (implied by the absence of this particular false concept), but I don’t under-estimate the high likelihood for disappointment.
“mild absurdity (an invisible sky daddy watching everything we do, whose Son died for sins…)”
Your dismissal of the ‘invisible sky daddy’ and his Son is rather unwise.
The Son speaks with authority in regards with this matter and his affirmations are found reasonable. I am today persuaded that Christ is God’s Son that died on the Cross for our sins.
The Son reveals a loving God whose concern for his creation went so far as to send his Son into the world and share with us how much God loved us. God is neither far nor distant (invisible) but actively involved even in your life. He speaks softly, repeatedly and kindly – it is however perilous to dismiss him unreasonably.
Now, these statements can be honestly evaluated and proven true in spite of the general misconception regarding Jesus or the conflict between science and the biblical God.
Jesus says that God is reachable and knowable. He says that our ignorance of God is willful. Hear his exact words:
John 7:17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.
Now, judge for yourself how willing you are to know. And if you will to know, you must go to Jesus and ask for understanding as he alone is the appointed teacher.
Here is what I personally found to be true:
That life is short and death is certain. I must know in my lifetime what to make of it. We spend years in our favorite interests yet give Jesus very little thought. Yes?
That we generally recognize to do things against our better judgment. Our conscience approves or disapprove of our actions. Jesus says that acting against conscience is punishable by death. Yes?
That we experience a range of emotions as a result of our actions. Joy in doing what is right, guilt when doing what is wrong. The result is a troubled heart and a tangible fear of death. We are guilty. Yes?
Jesus says that when we believe in him, i.e. receive him, the changes in our lives are astounding and the eternal prospect is secure.
I have found the following to be true. As I read the Bible, my heart filled with concern, guilt heightened and the fear increased. I have found that the Bible was right in saying that we do not have an interest to do that which is right but enjoy that which is pleasurable to us. I was troubled for a while and asked for understanding. Eventually it became apparent that while I liked the idea of God I resented the idea that I had to submit to Jesus fully. I began to agree with Jesus but was unwilling to stop being the master of my own life and have his authority me. I became acutely aware that while on the outside I was a pleasant and humorous presence for those around, inside I was rebellious, angry, unhappy. I found it to be true that there was no good in me and that I was both helpless and unwilling to follow Jesus. He was right. We do not know the truth because we don’t like what it says about us.
In the meantime I began to see how good, and gracious and loving God was. How beautiful his demands were. How wonderful the world would be if we all were like Jesus. He is kind, loving, patient, forgiving, self controlled, gentle in disposition. His followers have peace and joy in their life; quiet confidence that all is well with their soul. Jesus was such a wonderful person yet was killed for no offense.
I started to want Jesus. But my heart continued to trouble me with no rest. I could not see how God could forgive such a rebellious person who raised his fist in anger at him in the past and blaming Him for all the mishapps of my past.
I started now to seek him. And yes, He can be found. I found that he’s love for me was unchanging, that he was always ready to receive me unto himself. Even more so, I learned that in order to be well with God I had to simply receive in Jesus. I understood that as we indeed are deserving condemnation, forgiveness is a gift given freely by the Father on account of the death of his son. I believed. I received.
I am now a person whose belief in Jesus is sincere. My heart is now peaceful and joyous. I have no fear of God or death. More so, I have found that God is present in my life in many ways that is visible whenever I sit quietly and pay attention. I have found that there is now a secret, gentle guidance in my heart that helps me understand the bible, myself and the world around me. I am sincerely won over by what I call a new life. I can now attest as millions today and millions over centuries that God is and Jesus is his Son. That there is salvation in believing in Jesus and that indeed only an acceptance of the blood of the Cross brings peace to my conscience.
Jesus did not intend to speak to us in scientific or other terms except in a manner that is accessible to all people throughout the whole history. It is remarkable how my experience is shared by all people who receive Jesus and his words.
Jesus is a proven reality that can be found today.
Dismissing Jesus is perilous and unwise. A great loss indeed. He is your best friend. He is God in person reaching out to us.
I wish you reconsider.
Florin,
florin@bytenotes.com
This article was a ridiculous, unsupported assertion. There is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of agile methodologies – real hard numbers. The most recent of which was the study headed by Michael Mah: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/5-Success-Factors-Michael-Mah
Curt, Haha! Pseudo-science at its finest
florin, Thank you for visiting and as much as you would surely dislike my saying so, I hope your apparent neurological sickness is cured within your short life time
I do not get the notion of Agile being something scientific?
While there is enough (computer) science, development methodologies like Agile are nearer to social “sciences” which again are not sciences in the narrower sense.
Flash, Agile is not scientific. No more than Chiropractic or the Creation Museum in the United States anyway – which is not at all and masquerading to the contrary.
Much of mainstream software development is a fashion industry supported by myth repetition by scientifically-illiterate people.
Can you please point out the place where an agile proponent, or any of the original signatories have claimed that ‘Agile’ is a science? At best, it is a set of heuristics to try to help deal with the human side of development.
@Keith
Exactly what I meant, but wasn’t able to formulate
You can forget exact science as soon as “enough” human interaction takes place. Some really superb models have been created to try to explain human behavior, but those models fail because human beings cannot be modeled and behave irrational. And this includes atheists too …
It may or may not be the case that an Agile proponent has explicitly claimed “This is science” (although one commenter here has tried), however, Agile proponents certainly attempt to answer scientific questions about the world.
Similarly, a believe of any particular creation myth may not be explicitly claiming “This is science” (though some do), but they are most certainly attempting to answer a scientific question and failing quite disastrously (the common attributes to Agile are striking).
Tony, I think you’ve confused yourself unnecessarily. Or, possibly, you’re not confused enough.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the father of modern linguistics, pointed out in his Philosophical Investigations that almost nothing is defined in a formal, logically consistent, manner.
His example was “game”. What’s a “game”? What properties do all games have that all non-games do not have?
If you think about all of the uses of that word (e.g. board games, card games, the Olympic games, war games, mind games…), you soon discover that there really is no consistent definition of this word. And yet, this doesn’t cause a problem: we all use the word consistently, and possibly apart from a few corner cases, we generally concur on what is a “game” and what isn’t.
What’s probably going on in our brains is that we’re using prototypes. “These are games, and things like them are also games.” But even then, this isn’t the whole story, because some “likenesses” are more important than others. (Olympic target shooting is a game, for example, but millitary sharpshooting isn’t.)
It seems that pretty much all words in English, with the exception of a very small number of jargon terms, are defined this way.
And then, of course, there are the issues of context-dependence (a big mouse is no match for a small elephant), fuzzy set membership (are Mormons Christian?) and exemplars (a penguin is a 100% valid bird, but it’s a poor example of one).
So I think that the linguistic evidence is pretty clearly against your “Christianity/Agile doesn’t exist” thesis. It’s also quite obtuse: The world is a complicated place, and we do a disservice to English by dumbing it down to the point where it can’t capture that complexity.
One more thing.
“Blue” isn’t scientific, either. Yet there it is in the banner of your blog.
Psuedonym,
You have misunderstood my intention. I am not talking about words, but concepts. To attempts to make Christianity a concept results in its immediate demise. Blue is a concept. That we agree on a definition for Blue is a different matter. Using words, we can likely formulate a meta-concept describing a non-concept on which we both agree cannot possibly exist. The words themselves are unimportant.
That there exists a word does not imply the validity of a concept.
That doesn’t even make sense. I can’t help thinking that you’re trying to build a very pretty straw man, but it doesn’t even look like a man to me.
Surely Christianity is, and has always been, a religious movement. It’s not primarily a set of beliefs or, at least, it’s not really the beliefs and practices that distinguish Christianity from non-Christianity (in the sense that all major world religions, and most minor ones, are pretty much the same when you abstract out the implementation details). Rather, it’s the school of thought of those who follow a particular religious teacher from a couple of thousand years ago.
You can conceptualise the movement all you like, but I don’t think that you can think it out of existence.
[...] devo scappare, ma concludo segnalando un questo post al vetriolo sull’argomento. Forse qui si esagera, però….. addthis_url = [...]
“florin, Thank you for visiting and as much as you would surely dislike my saying so, I hope your apparent neurological sickness is cured within your short life time
”
Sad to see this arrogance here …
Tony, you’re in the footsteps of people like Dawkins which claim to have all truth with them by simply defining the space for their acceptance narrow enough.
First defining only category A to be acceptable than declaring that something does not fit into category A, so deducing its non-existence is simply in the same class of idioty you are arguing against.
In the end: I only believe to be existing, what I have seen. I never have seen Tony Morris, so Tony does not exist. q.e.d.
“That there exists a word does not imply the validity of a concept.”
That there exist words formulating a concept you cannot accept or even is provable to be not valid does not necessarily make the part of reality which had been tried to conceptualise non-existing, only the concept itsself.
“To attempts to make Christianity a concept results in its immediate demise. ”
Perhaps, as long as one accepts your concept of “concept”.
Possibly someone can prove your concept of “non-concept” being a non-concept …
Det, you have never seen a square, yet a square is a valid concept. You’ve missed the point entirely. Dawkins is not arrogant (relatively so) and I treat religiosity as a neurological disorder until I learn of a better reason not to.
Tony, I can give you a simple “better reason”: You are currently at odds with pretty much every scientific expert on the topic. If you have some qualifications in neurology, psychiatry or any form of medicine whatsoever that we’re not aware of, or are sitting on some research that we haven’t seen, then it might do you well to disclose them.
For the record, I don’t think you’re arrogant. You just happen to be on the same side as young-earth creationists and chiropractors at the moment, and that’s quite amusing to watch.
Pseudonym, you’re right regarding neurological disorder. I am abusing terms. Instead I mean religiosity is neurological and a disorder but not necessarily a neurological disorder.
Religion and Agile differ in one big respect: If you’re 100% something, you’re not Agile. Requiring unit tests is not agile. Requiring pair programming is not agile. Requiring customer interaction is not agile. It may be scrum, but it’s not agile.
Agile is becoming mainstream. Everyone does it, so there’s no more reason to use a special word for it.
“Det, you have never seen a square, yet a square is a valid concept. ”
Absolutely right.
“You’ve missed the point entirely.”
And I think, Pseudonym is right…
“religiosity is neurological and a disorder”
This statement is only driven by personal antipathy, and such religious itself.
Neither does the statement “religiosity is neurological” bring any helpful progress (as everything that humans do is somehow neurological) nor does the statement “religiosity is a disorder”, as that is a subjective prejudice and no objective predicate.
The combination of the two is therefore meaningless.
Assuming that the first statement be right (scientists claimed to have found the location of “religiosity” in the temporal lobe, IIRC), it can be stated to be a disorder that people are NOT religious, as most people are religious all over the world, and have been all the time, seemingly due to natural neurological disposition.
So being an atheist is a disorder (metaphysical autism), as the atheist lacks a common property and is reduced to pure empirical perception of the world.
See: I do not claim that to be true, but neither your statement.
“Similarly, a believe of any particular creation myth may not be explicitly claiming “This is science” (though some do), but they are most certainly attempting to answer a scientific question”
Only the ones who claim to know ‘how’. But to others of these believers the myth only answers their question ‘why’. And that is a philosophical question, not an empirical one.
Tony:
I guess it depends what you mean by “religiosity”, “neurological” and “disorder”. Adhering to a religion is, as any psychiatrist will tell you, not a problem unless it causes a problem.
Lars D:
I think you’re right and you’re wrong.
Gah, let me try again.
Lars D:
I think you’re right and you’re wrong.
Historically, you’re right, in the sense that Agile is a term that only makes sense by comparison to what came before it. If nobody does that old stuff any more, the word “Agile” has no meaning.
You’re wrong in the sense that Agile still doesn’t make sense for all types of software (even waterfall development still makes sense for some kinds of safety-critical system), and given that, it makes sense to distinguish Agile from non-Agile.
Interesting thread. I think that anyone that contends the writing software is a purely scientific exercise has never had to work with a team of other people, on real-world projects that often lack rigorous definition. The suggestion that software engineers are “religious” if they see any value in things like test-driven-design, and iterative development is hilarious.
Hello Ed,
Your contention is false. I have worked on the team that produces IBM WebSphere Application Server, but don’t let that detract from the hilarity
The suggestion is that TDD is a meme and not a consistent logical concept. Proponents are implicated as religious on this assumption.
Why is it that poor arguments are often *extremely poor*?
OK … there was a 2nd part to my contention that you are ignoring … but no matter. I would agree in principle that the word Agile (similar to Web2.0) is an umbrella term that means different things to different people. For me it means iterative development and TDD (practices I’ve picked up from Agilistas) ; for someone else it might mean pair programming, architects writing code, etc. The degree to which the word Agile is useful to software developers, is the degree to which it is meaningful.
As Pseudonym pointed out above, if you drill down far enough in the use of words you inevitably arrive at similar conclusions about all words. Personally I find the most value in the Pragmatic school of philosophy where the meanings of words is found in how useful they are, intheir relation to other words…not an intrinsic property of the word itself, some Platonic ideal, or concept.
But I’m a humanist, not a scientist
Also, on the subject of hilarity — I thought you’d like this: http://www.pragprog.com/images/covers/original/pad.jpg
Pseudonym missed the point — it was never about words. I find pragmatism to be the new trend of anti-intellectualism. Even under this guise of pragmatism, the term “Agile” is not useful at all — I think this is a case of double-think.
“…an umbrella term that means different things to different people”. You probably don’t realise that you have supported by point most aptly.
Pragmatism: nothing means anything, except that which is wished for.
By the way, Pragmatism is Platonic since it subscribes to the premise of primacy of consciousness. Try “The Menace of Pragmatism” by Dr. Tara Smith.
Cool, thanks for the reference to Tara Smith’s book, I’m always looking to balance my opinions… I was actually trying to find some middle ground with my assertion that “Agile” means different things to different people … and also with the link the the book cover with the angels and demons around the agilista’s head. A discussion that compares “Pragmatism” and “Religion” is fundamentally about words IMHO … but I accept that you are focused on them more as ideas that can be proven.
I am not an expert on Pragmatism by any means. I’ve just recently been delving into some works by Richard Rorty. In Rorty’s view (as much as I understand it) the radically inventive side to knowledge generation certainly has a component of ‘hope’ which could be interpreted as a sort of ‘wish’. But that’s not the end of the story. Rorty’s main point is that knowledge itself persists over time only as long as it is useful in some way…and that uses for theories, ideas, knowledge, religions can (and do) change over time, as do the theories, ideas and knowledge themselves.
I guess the canonical example of this is how Einstein’s refined or completed Newton’s Theory of Gravity. Einstein’s theory of gravity helped explain anomalies that Simon Newcomb noticed in the observed orbit of Mercury around the Sun as compared with what Newton’s theory predicted. The Darwinian/Kuhnian side to Pragmatism can seem relativistic to some people. Personally I find it to be a rejuvenating and liberating idea.
As Cervantes said “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. If some people eat Agile and get some perceived use out of it is it ‘nonsense’? My guess is that your answer is “yes”. Mine is “no”. My contention is that software engineering is an art as well as a science. Agile methodologies have some artisan qualities, which help software developers (like me) in their work, where theory and proof do not.
That being said, I agree that blanket terms like Agile, Web2.0 etc can get pretty annoying sometimes…especially in the evangelical phase. My wife complains that I always try to have the last word…I think she’s right.
Thanks for your posting, but no thanks for insulting my beliefs. I don’t think it is necessary to pollute the discussion about whether there is such an idea as Agile with side-swipes at any reader’s faith. I’m with Florin on this one, though to my shame I can’t argue my case as eloquently or as learnedly as he does.
Hello Immo,
I don’t think it is necessary either (did I suggest it was?). But it sure is a striking resemblance. Your faith does not deserve the respect you think it does. Indeed I assert my right to “insult it” should I think it warrants insulting. In return, I encourage you insult any stupid ideas I might have (and they occasionally are brought to my attention, but please be rigorous in your attempt!). In fact, I do think that your faith deserves insulting, though that is not what I did. That you might feel insulted is entirely your problem that you alone must deal with. I accept no responsibility for it. You do have my empathy though, since I imagine myself in your position (that is, being so intellectually immature as to “feel insulted” — not being insulted itself).
I think the absence of an argument on your behalf is more constructive to arguing the point that florin has — which is incredibly poor.
Interestingly, have you noticed how the “Agilists” feel “insulted” when I attack their “faith”? They think it is I who is making the bold claim, yet the burden of proof is on them and they have failed miserably to supply any evidence for their nonsense (indeed it is so extremely easy to topple). It is them making the bold claims. In the absence of such claims I have nothing to talk about in that respect.
A cup of religion anyone?
I am equally amazed by the dogmatic nature in believers as well as non-believers.
The believers refer to their scriptures for their punch-lines while the non-believers refer to their book of logic to sharpen up their reasoning.
The non-believers ( not all at least) analyse other’s arguments with the help of their holy scriptures (there are plenty to go by) in the hope of detecting fallacies and tearing other’s arguments to shreds.
They go, oh, there it is, that’s what they call ‘Shifting the burden of proof, Gotcha!
Ah, that line of argument resembles what the scriptures call ‘Argumentum ad ignorantiam’ and so on.
And, generally the non-believers comes at top every time with the aid of their book of logic and science. Which is fair enough, but the only problem is if you analyse the so called smart people, they happen to lead a life full of contradictions and their arguments are littered with fallacies, albeit subtle ones, generally too subtle to be detected by the less smarter of the species.
Logic is a two timing bitch my friend. It isn’t loyal to anyone. Or rather, logic is an opportunistic bitch, it switches sides all too often.
There was a time when scientists and logicians claimed with full conviction and limited dataset that the sun revlolved around the earth and the earth is flat.
It only took smarter scientists and logicians a few centuries back to discredit that line of belief and came with convincing theory that the earth is round and in fact its the earth that revolves around the sun and not the other way around.
Some of newton’s theories have been discredited and so have the theories of countless smart scientists by even smarter scientists.
Just look at Einstein and how vehemently he disliked Quantum theory.
His words “I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist. ”
See, even science brews dogma. And Einstein had other fallacies too, he was a complete idiot when it came to social science , politics and philosophy.
Einstein is considered the greatest scientist of all times, but is there any gurantee that his theories won’t be discredited over time, just like so many theories that came along in the history of human civilization??
And who is going to explain the origin of the Universe?? You have to be pretty dogmatic to believe Jesus designed the whole damn universe or to believe it all started from the so called Big Bang.
Where did all the matters come in into the great void ? And if the origin of the universe can be traced to the Big Bang, where would you trace the origin of the Big Bang??
If big bang is considered the origin of the universe, was the space as we know today void before the big bang? IF it was, then how can a void be filled with particles and matters out of nowhere??
ITs the greatest paradox of all time. Its almost as interesting as the question of Chicken and Egg. IF chicken didn’t exist where did egg come from? Sure some chicken has to lay egg for another chicken to come into being.
Neither chicken nor egg could have materialised out of void. The same way the universe couldn’t have materialise out of void. Where did all the dust particles come from ??
From egg or chicken?
As a self-claimed smart person, how would you explain that?
public void createUniverse(List matters) throws NullPointerException, NoSuchMatterExistsException{
// Throws null pointer exception why???
}
The problem with science is it attempts to explain the origin of something they have little understanding of. Well, the problem is not with science, its with people who tend to think they are lot more smarter than they really are.
Even before human beings understand themselves, they try to explain things beyond their comprehension. That’s the fallacy of science.
And shifting the burden of proof isn’t going to help anyone, it will just give you some time to collect yourself, consult more books on science and logic and prepare for another assult.
Surely, if you expect the religious people to shoulder the burden of proof for god, how about you shoulder the burden of proof for the origin of the universe.
And don’t consult the books on big -bang theory, because they fall way too short of explaining anything.
Just explain this, how would this awfully complicated universe come into being out of void??
So I wonder, is science a religion??
Tony,
.
( please excuse me if I’m a terribly slow learner).
By the way, u seem to be obsessed with words and u seem to love playing with words in a very unhealthy manner, if you don’t mind me saying so
And some people ,including myself, may perceive that as some sort of sickness.
And I might treat people’s obsession with words as a neurological disorder until I learn of a better reason not to
Further I’ll treat `delusion of grandeur` as a neurological disorder too
until you prove it otherwise in simpler words , as I believe I have enough reasons to believe you suffers from it.
So, the burden of proof is on you my friend.
Ah, the shift of the damn burden of proof can be such burden, its like getting shot with your own weapon of choice sometimes, its like realizing that your girlfriend is pretty much everyone’s girlfriend, if people just know how to please her.
In other words, words are whores in the hands of pimps if you are a good pimp.
No further explanations.
Surely you could claim I completely missed your point, but then again I’d like you to prove it beyond reasonable doubts, instead of just stating it and rearranging your rhetoric.
Instead of taking cheap pot-shots at concepts and beliefs that you don’t like , ( I hate rich people because they are rich and I’m not), how about leaving your abstract mathematical world and explaining your disagreements in more meaningful way so that your words actually convey your stance instead of becoming mere rhetoric.
Like Pseudonym commented, you are dangerously close to the creationist cronies you utterly despise-in that your arguments lack substance and reproducible proof. And if someone like Pseudonym comes along and shreds your rhetoric bare, you rearrange your words into obscurity to mask your hollowness.
You might consider yourself a great word-smith, but my friend you have a lot to learn from your former prime minister John Howard in the faculty of word games – although you might despise him.
You know, rearranged words never changed the world… they just add obscurity and hinder progress towards understanding.
“There are a lot of weapons that are kind of hard to use in a public fight, whereas reason is something that you can walk out the door with everyday — you can pull it out of its scabbard and stab people with it. It’s very, very effective. You can knock down archbishops and popes with reason and they can’t figure out what to do. The trouble is, they can knock you down with reason too.” -JRS.
Who is JRS you may ask, but I challange you to rearrange those words and discover its author, I’m not sure if that’s possible, but you sure can come up with an algorithm to find authors of given statements by applying some mathmatical functions to it
( hint hint -google)
and since you claim “Real-world problems are simply degenerate cases of pure mathematical problems”, I would like you to find a solution to a problem I have at the moment.
The problem – my girlfriend dumped me because I lack the sexual prowress required to satisfy her seemingly insatiable sexual needs.
Can you find a mathematical solution to my seeming low supply of libido, or even better can you find a mathematical solution to my now ex-girlfriend’s insatiable sexual needs so that she can lower her sexual expectation from her mating partner and hopefully come back to me by recognizing other qualities in me that she might come to value after all?
Just so as not to sound off topic, I admire the agility in monkeys and how they hop from one tree branch to another with great ease. In that sense I think agile is good
Why are the religious nutjobs visiting? Where did you come from? What is your compulsion to display your gross ineptitude for determining a true fact about the world in which we live — on my blog? Where was this linked from?
Very impressive response from a self-proclaimed logician and wise man.
But I’m at loss as to how you come to conclude me to be a religious nutjob from my above comments. I have to assume you live in a different world or I have to assume your analytical skills never developed further beyond your primary school, at least when it comes to things beyond computing and computing logic.
And for your information I have been a non-believer since my early high school years and I haven’t come across anyone since who has been able to convince me of the existence of supernatural beings and the existence of boring crap like heaven and hell .
I don’t call myself atheist because I don’t feel the necessity to classify myself as this and that because I dislike extremism in every form I have come across a lot of extremist atheists in my life.
The kind of extremism displayed by nutjob like Pat whom you condone and rever.
Well, I came upon your site while doing a bit of research on Scala and I was greatly impressed with your articles I must say. I found them educational and almost inspirational.
I think you have it in you to be a great teacher if you don’t veer off topic and decided to slap in your terribly shallow one-dimensional philosophical outlook of the world, religion and things you don’t like or understand in general, in your articles.
Ever wondered where the number Zero came from?
Being a computer science specialist you sure must acknowledge the great importance of the number zero and the contribution its invention has made not only to mathematics but to human civilization in general. What would happen to binary numeric system without zero? Without binary numeric system do you think we would have computers as we know today?
Would you still have the job that you hold and the degrees and knowledge you seem to pride so much with the seemingly unimportant number zero?
So, if you dig into the origin of zero and mathemetics, you’ll realise you are greatly indebted to the Hindu notjob scholars who first used zero as not just a placeholder but a true number which they used in mathemetics along with the use of positive and negative numbers.
And you are equally indebted to muslim notjob scholar Al-Khwarizmi for making significant contributions to the popularisation of Hindu numerals(incl. zero), calculation methods, algebra(“Al Jabr”) and algorithms (“Al-Khwarizmi”).
Now I’m sure you wish at least algorithms had nothing to do with any religion or religious nutjobs.
I guess you are not yet ready to admit that Hindus also taught you how to count.
Since you can’t change the truths,the best you can do is live in a state of denial.
You could be forgiven for thinking religion is christianity or something like christianity and nothing more.
The truth is out there, only if you are ready to embrace it.
forgot to answer some of your questions.
Although you seem incapable of answering questions with any sensibility- i’m afraid you seem incapable of answering any questions at all at times, I feel it necessary to answer questions without blinding myself with dogmatic beliefs, be it dogma of science or dogma of religion.
And in my above post I didn’t quite answer your questions, my humble apology.
“where did you come from?”
I come from the fifth dimension.
You sure are aware of the three dimensions, and I won’t elaborate on them, as for the fourth dimension, if you possess a watch, then u might be aware that TIME is considered the fourth dimension.
As for my origin, the fifth dimension, Its what some pragmatic and sensible scientists call the dimension of uncertainty. My world is a world devoid of absolute, be it half-baked scientific mumbo-jumbo or religious mumbo-jumbo. We keep our minds open to endless possibilities, the same possibilities afforded by this infinite universe.
And in my world, or dimension if you please, we constantly explore the possibilities of yet other dimensions. Its a world of endless battle my friend, endless struggle for meanings and the meaning of existence and reality and possibilities beyond petty indulgent arguements.
A true path of knowledge.
“What is your compulsion to display your gross ineptitude for determining a true fact about the world in which we live — on my blog? ”
As for answer to this question, let me share a story with you. I’m not sure if this story is true, and I don’t really care if it is or not, I’m just happy in the fact that it exposes the dual nature of truth.
In ancient time there was an empire, a very powerful one, where all men were required to be partially castrated. In other words, all men ended up having only one ball.
The other ball was chopped off when a boy turned into a man.
You might have heard of similar stories of passage to adulthood, but with different requirements and rituals.
So, when they met people from other countries and empires, they were baffled to see that the adults actually had two balls instead of one! My oh my!
So, if the empire where adults only had one ball had conquered the whole damn world, us folks with two balls would have been regarded as minorities, inferior race or as EXCEPTIONS.
In light of the above story, it is safe to say that truth lies with power?
Who laughs at whom?
And when you swell with arrogance derived from the knowledge of science as you know, aren’t you swelling with the same arraogance and conviction of the men of ancient empire where real men only had one ball?
Isn’t it people with power that laughs at the weaker folks?
At one instance it might be the two-balled folks and at another instance it might be folks with one ball.
Aaagh, the complexity of this world is boundless.
So, is it possible that gross ineptitude may have a similar duality? What seems to be “gross ineptitude” to you may be considered otherwise at different realm , time and dimension.
Could it tbe assumed that your baffement is similar to the bafflement experienced by the one-balled men from the empire when they met people with two balls from some other empire ?
Its a question I’ll leave you to ponder….
My friend the world is not as simple as 1+1=2.
Sometimes 1+1=1.
You may be baffled by my above statement, but ‘ 1 pile of crap +1 pile of crap’ will always equal to one pile of crap, albeit a bigger pile of crap.
That’s one more thing for you to ponder.
“Where was this linked from?”
http://www.religionofscience.com
And if you don’t like my post, there’s such a thing as censorship.
But I would like to remind you of a Buddhist saying ” No matter how much the blinds deny the existence of the sun, they cannot annihilate the truth.”
can you?
I still admire the agility of monkeys and in their great ability to hop from one branch of tree to another
Tony, you are awesome. I really want you to write a book, technical and about religion.
“These claims are false and are a classic example of double-think. If Christianity were to be defined in a logically consistent manner, it loses its elevated status.”
Even this conversation in defense of religion shows how absurd religion can be. It is purely based on the years and years and years of belief and word of mouth. Do you remember that kids game “Telephone”, where you get into a group and then you speak into the ear of the person adjacent to you and at the end of the game try to see if the last message matches up with the original. It is just like with Agile and religion. I was taught Agile a couple of years ago at one software company and then at the company I am at now, it is interpreted completely different. So if Agile-A is completely different from Agile-B, it starts to become a non-concept. At the end of the day, Agile equates to “write software and have users test it”.
The sad part is how a large partition of the industry gets Fad syndrome, they start Agile training and seminars and there are books devoted to this “non-concept”.