We aren't doing physics here. If we can't observe the effects of something easily, it probably isn't that important.
back
2 comments
Actually, that is similar to the position of a physicist, just without the words "easily" and "probably". For instance, what happened before the big bang has no effect on the current universe, which is why there's so much research into the first moments of the big bang, and not into any point in time before then.
But to address your comment specifically, I couldn't disagree more. Unless, of course you're just trolling by making a rediculous statement without any backing evidence in a discussion about pseudoscience, in which case, well done.
First, all of the parent's examples are hypotheses that are hard to test, not hard to observe. It's hard to test just how much better NoSQL/SQL is for a given task, but not hard to see that there are differences in performance if you were to, say, implement both systems. I'd like to see you change the management methodology for a company and not see a change. Same goes for his outsourcing example.
Second, I do not think there is a logical connection between your conclusion and your premise. Since you haven't given a single iota or proof for your claim, I don't think I need any proof to counter it.
Finally, even if we aren't doing "physics" (what ever your definition of that is), why does that mean pseudoscience is acceptable?
Maybe there is no strict ordering for those technologies. Or maybe what works best depends on the individuals involved.
Also, there is the "no silver bullet" theory.
You and I agree. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but the way I read the post at the top of this thread, each claim could be backed with appropriate evidence for and against (as Feynman says every scientist's duty is). For a sufficiently well defined situation X, the claim that "Y is the most appropriate solution for X" can and should be tested appropriately.
The "appropriate" amount of testing would also depend on the situation X. The 'difficulty of observation' may be a factor here, but is not the only one. If the situation doesn't require 'hard' evidence (e.g. the consequences are minor) that's fine, but I wouldn't say any of the above examples fall under that category, and people making decisions based on 'soft' evidence should do so knowing that it is what it is.
Also, whether there is or isn't a strict ordering, dependence on the individuals, or a silver bullet would all be facts turned up by sufficient application of the scientific method. This relates to Feynman's points on how it's necessary to do experiments where you "don't learn anything new" and again, how every scientist is ethically bound to report results that contradict their theory.
That's the kind of thinking that leads you into wondering how the hell your code base got so bad, how you fell so far behind the competition, etc. A lot of critically important aspects of modern software engineering and craftsmanship are extremely subjective. The difference between success and failure in software can often come down to having the right group of people with good judgment in charge.