Metaphysics of Software Development
Some insights on the software development craft, from a philosophical viewpoint.Thursday, February 11, 2010
On the explicit propositions
Let reasonable debate mean the quest for the truth in a discussion, i.e., a sincere devotion, from all debaters, to get closer to the truth, regarding some subject matter. This attitude implies occasional changes of opinion and acknowledgment of errors. In other words, it implies the refutation of the false opinions that were already in people's minds before the discussion had started. False opinions may also naturally arise along the process, which are ideally detected and discarded in the dialectical confrontation.
Since every opinion (either true or false) is a proposition, there will certainly be refutations for some propositions in a reasonable debate. In order to be possible to refute any proposition, it is essential to recognize it as such. The debaters must be aware that they are uttering propositions, that is, sentences able of truth or falsehood. They should not take it for granted for the sole reason they ignore that possibility.
When stating something, a conscious debater is implicitly saying: "believe in what I say because this statement is true, even though I could say something false, instead. Put another way, the truth comes from the proposition that underlies my statement and not from the fact that I am stating it". On the other hand, for debaters who are unaware of their own propositions, the statements are merely followed by an implicit "believe in what I say". Period. Therefore, everyone involved in a discussion should recognize the propositions formulated by themselves. Anyone who is unable to do that cannot engage in any reasonable debate whatsoever.
Consider, for instance, someone who believes that the more textual documentation is produced, the better it is for a software project. The problem here is not that such a person is absolutely certain of that theory. A certainty, in this case, would be equivalent to affirming its truth, which thus stands opposite to falsehood. The problem is that they cannot even entertain the possibility of truth or falsehood, as far as the proposition is concerned. And it would hopeless, for refutation purposes, to cut the documentation down to a hundredth and yet achieve better and faster results. Before such an evidence, an unconscious debater would keep on repeating their initial assertions (after all, that is what they have known for several years, they learned that in school and so on and so forth). "Things have got to be that way".
Such people are invulnerable to any argument or evidence, regardless of how strong or convincing the argument or evidence may be. Whenever these debaters are recoiled by the power of their opponent's logical reasoning, it is very common to see them changing the subject of the discussion or presenting some fool objection. By constantly misguiding the discussion, those individuals can always escape from embarrassment, but cannot provide any contribution at all, either to the clarification of a question or to the pursuit of truth. The discussion is useless both for them and for the interlocutors.
Since every opinion (either true or false) is a proposition, there will certainly be refutations for some propositions in a reasonable debate. In order to be possible to refute any proposition, it is essential to recognize it as such. The debaters must be aware that they are uttering propositions, that is, sentences able of truth or falsehood. They should not take it for granted for the sole reason they ignore that possibility.
When stating something, a conscious debater is implicitly saying: "believe in what I say because this statement is true, even though I could say something false, instead. Put another way, the truth comes from the proposition that underlies my statement and not from the fact that I am stating it". On the other hand, for debaters who are unaware of their own propositions, the statements are merely followed by an implicit "believe in what I say". Period. Therefore, everyone involved in a discussion should recognize the propositions formulated by themselves. Anyone who is unable to do that cannot engage in any reasonable debate whatsoever.
Consider, for instance, someone who believes that the more textual documentation is produced, the better it is for a software project. The problem here is not that such a person is absolutely certain of that theory. A certainty, in this case, would be equivalent to affirming its truth, which thus stands opposite to falsehood. The problem is that they cannot even entertain the possibility of truth or falsehood, as far as the proposition is concerned. And it would hopeless, for refutation purposes, to cut the documentation down to a hundredth and yet achieve better and faster results. Before such an evidence, an unconscious debater would keep on repeating their initial assertions (after all, that is what they have known for several years, they learned that in school and so on and so forth). "Things have got to be that way".
Such people are invulnerable to any argument or evidence, regardless of how strong or convincing the argument or evidence may be. Whenever these debaters are recoiled by the power of their opponent's logical reasoning, it is very common to see them changing the subject of the discussion or presenting some fool objection. By constantly misguiding the discussion, those individuals can always escape from embarrassment, but cannot provide any contribution at all, either to the clarification of a question or to the pursuit of truth. The discussion is useless both for them and for the interlocutors.
Labels: Dialectic
posted by Otavio Macedo # 4:02 PM 
Archives
January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 August 2011 November 2011
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment