software engineering as myth

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> In this environment, anyone who could offer a structured model of how
> things worked (read "myth" if you are an archeologist) was welcomed with
> immediate belief and even worship, which quickly led to a ritual.  How
> many times today do we jump to a model of a pressing problem without
> critically examination, testing, experimentation, or measurement? What we
> think of as methodologies are actually mythodol-ogies. Mythodologies will
> not stand up to scrutiny, hence they must quickly be supported by ritual
> or they will die and will be faced with the uncomfortable realization that
> we have a continuing unsolved problem.

Too often, I think, our culture is prone to go to such mythodol-ogies
because the problems are too complex.  Some research in complex systems has
suggested that for the first time in our history, our culture may have
reached a level of complexity than no one person can comprehend the entire
culture [0].  So, since each of us has no clue how to comprehend these
complex problems, we latch on to explanations and remedies that make sense
to us but have no basis.

Oddly enough, the complex systems folks say this is actually good news,
because the problems may be addressed in ways we can't even fathom.

OTOH, people might just be lazy.  They choose these mythodologies because
they are scared that the real solutions are too hard.  I am sure this is
what Jello Biafra would say.  :)

[0] I wish I had a reference for this research---the only vague one I have is
    a Complex systems talk I went to a University of Cincinnati done by a
    key person in the field whose name I forget.  How's that for
    mythodology.  :(
-- 
         -  bkuhn@ebb.org  -  Bradley M. Kuhn  -  bkuhn@gnu.org  -
                          http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn