Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
2006-10-27
This article is alternatively entitled 'Stay away from de Voodoooo', especially if you're not a lawyer, a philosopher, or a person with a vague interest in almost anything and too much time on his hands.
I don't believe in luck. Well, let me qualify that a little: I'm a logical person, and there's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. Sorry, couldn't resist that... Anyway, I believe in few, if any, superstitions, and any such beliefs I do have (I can't think of any) I consider a character flaw. Some I do observe, because I'm the sort to pay at least lip service to traditions and other people's beliefs, and some I may appear to observe (my avoidance of walking under ladders is only as strong as my drive to stay away from other instances of being beneath unstable and flimsy structures and increasing the likelihood of workmen dropping things on me; I'd rather not break mirrors because broken glass is a bugger to get rid of safely and some mirrors are expensive), but generally I consider that sort of belief a little daft.
For those who missed it, here's a version of the previous sentence without the parenthetic part: Some I do observe, because I'm the sort to pay at least lip service to traditions and other people's beliefs, and some I may appear to observe, but generally I consider that sort of belief a little daft. My writing is vivid proof that simply following the letter of some rules of grammar doesn't make your work legible.
Anyway, I work with computers, and I'm the most technologically adept person in my workplace. Potentially I'm the only technically adept person in my workplace, which is a little crazy considering we're a technology company, but anyway. You get used to the claim that the computers play up for other people then won't do the same for you (I won't bore you with my theories), but sometimes it goes further than that.
I was helping my boss with something earlier on. I should point out that he's semi-(or more)-retired, and works from home and hence doesn't count in the 'in my workplace' statistic above. Now, my boss is a little confusing: I can never tell just how much he understands.
The in-house software (all of it except that bits that are mine, in fact), is his, and in itself it's a confusing mixed bag: in some places detailed comments explain how he managed to isolate a particular bug in the DBMS or its programming language and design a workaround, but in other places (mainly the UI and various useability-critical subsystems) the design was pretty primitive (even beyond the fact that GUIs weren't all that widespread at the time). Now though, he seems barely familiar with that software, let alone the wider world of things I would expect him to have had to understand.
I think it's partly a difference in approach. Despite appearances, I'm not really a details person. I like detail, certainly, but I can't do much with it - in particular I have trouble retaining it - if I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I like 'big pictures' and I would rather understand than know. I try and pass it off as a good thing: I can't remember the specifics of ... well, much, but where I understand the background I can normally use whatever reference material is available to fill in blanks.
Other people I've know, the boss included I think, learn from the bottom up: they know the details, they see what works and what doesn't and they learn from it at a details level. Maybe people like this never need (and hence never get) the 'big picture' understanding that I can't function without.
And of course, there's been plenty of time to forget, and for things to have changed. The point wasn't to make fun of my boss, who is a really nice bloke, but to muse about the way people tend to clutch at straws when looking for any causality they think they can get. The example I had earlier was an unavailable computer: it didn't respond to ping, so he pinged something else to check that, then the first host responded to the next ping. To be fair, he didn't explicitly suggest causality, but he sounded enough like he believed it, and it's certainly the sort of thing other people I know would do.
Hence the title, for those who can remember what it was.
IT is some kind of mystical art to a lot of people, and that's fair enough (hence the quote, and maybe the alternative title). But if it's a mystical art, is it really such a good idea to go guessing bits of it? Each tradition that believes it has working magic seems to have an adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and maybe it's time computing got one too ;)
I'm not saying people should avoid getting a little knowledge, of course. I'm saying that they shouldn't stop there. Next step, teach Annie some [more] HTML...
The bottom line applies to more than just IT. By all means look for hidden meaning and hope to find the 'logical' progression that explains it all. Just don't expect to find it. Not in one sitting.
Clarke's Third Law:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I don't believe in luck. Well, let me qualify that a little: I'm a logical person, and there's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. Sorry, couldn't resist that... Anyway, I believe in few, if any, superstitions, and any such beliefs I do have (I can't think of any) I consider a character flaw. Some I do observe, because I'm the sort to pay at least lip service to traditions and other people's beliefs, and some I may appear to observe (my avoidance of walking under ladders is only as strong as my drive to stay away from other instances of being beneath unstable and flimsy structures and increasing the likelihood of workmen dropping things on me; I'd rather not break mirrors because broken glass is a bugger to get rid of safely and some mirrors are expensive), but generally I consider that sort of belief a little daft.
For those who missed it, here's a version of the previous sentence without the parenthetic part: Some I do observe, because I'm the sort to pay at least lip service to traditions and other people's beliefs, and some I may appear to observe, but generally I consider that sort of belief a little daft. My writing is vivid proof that simply following the letter of some rules of grammar doesn't make your work legible.
Anyway, I work with computers, and I'm the most technologically adept person in my workplace. Potentially I'm the only technically adept person in my workplace, which is a little crazy considering we're a technology company, but anyway. You get used to the claim that the computers play up for other people then won't do the same for you (I won't bore you with my theories), but sometimes it goes further than that.
I was helping my boss with something earlier on. I should point out that he's semi-(or more)-retired, and works from home and hence doesn't count in the 'in my workplace' statistic above. Now, my boss is a little confusing: I can never tell just how much he understands.
The in-house software (all of it except that bits that are mine, in fact), is his, and in itself it's a confusing mixed bag: in some places detailed comments explain how he managed to isolate a particular bug in the DBMS or its programming language and design a workaround, but in other places (mainly the UI and various useability-critical subsystems) the design was pretty primitive (even beyond the fact that GUIs weren't all that widespread at the time). Now though, he seems barely familiar with that software, let alone the wider world of things I would expect him to have had to understand.
I think it's partly a difference in approach. Despite appearances, I'm not really a details person. I like detail, certainly, but I can't do much with it - in particular I have trouble retaining it - if I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I like 'big pictures' and I would rather understand than know. I try and pass it off as a good thing: I can't remember the specifics of ... well, much, but where I understand the background I can normally use whatever reference material is available to fill in blanks.
Other people I've know, the boss included I think, learn from the bottom up: they know the details, they see what works and what doesn't and they learn from it at a details level. Maybe people like this never need (and hence never get) the 'big picture' understanding that I can't function without.
And of course, there's been plenty of time to forget, and for things to have changed. The point wasn't to make fun of my boss, who is a really nice bloke, but to muse about the way people tend to clutch at straws when looking for any causality they think they can get. The example I had earlier was an unavailable computer: it didn't respond to ping, so he pinged something else to check that, then the first host responded to the next ping. To be fair, he didn't explicitly suggest causality, but he sounded enough like he believed it, and it's certainly the sort of thing other people I know would do.
Hence the title, for those who can remember what it was.
IT is some kind of mystical art to a lot of people, and that's fair enough (hence the quote, and maybe the alternative title). But if it's a mystical art, is it really such a good idea to go guessing bits of it? Each tradition that believes it has working magic seems to have an adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and maybe it's time computing got one too ;)
I'm not saying people should avoid getting a little knowledge, of course. I'm saying that they shouldn't stop there. Next step, teach Annie some [more] HTML...
The bottom line applies to more than just IT. By all means look for hidden meaning and hope to find the 'logical' progression that explains it all. Just don't expect to find it. Not in one sitting.
Comments