5 ms·

"People who excel at software design become convinced that they have a unique ability to understand any kind of system at all, from first principles, without pr

"People who excel at software design become convinced that they have a unique ability to understand any kind of system at all, from first principles, without prior training, thanks to their superior powers of analysis. Success in the artificially constructed world of software design promotes a dangerous confidence." http://idlewords.com/talks/sase_panel.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/sase_panel.htm

bbctol 10y ago
Michael Graziano is a highly respected neuroscientist and psychologist (and a pretty good novelist, too.) Not to say that this isn't a real problem, and that trying to understand the brain through current engineering concepts can lead us into mental traps, but this is a guy with extensive experience and understanding of this particular system.
kazinator 10y ago
I must not excel at software design because I don't believe I can fully understand even a sufficiently complicated man-made software system.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
I think its even bigger than that. Lots of kids into STEM and the sciences seem to grow into adults with some really dismissive views of anything that isn't STEM and follow a fairly simplistic and reductionist approach to explaining the world. Often making grand and sweeping generalizations that sound "sciency" and pretending there's no mystery in the world and that human knowledge in 2016 is near perfect. Its bizarre and makes me wonder what about education created people with this mindset. Is it how we teach the sciences perhaps? It seems science is taught in a way that's just long tirades of endless hero worship, instead from a philosophical perspective of what it can and can't do for us. I also find academics don't often like to discuss failed scientific policies and beliefs of the past nor how science really is its infancy considering out modern system can only track itself back to the Royal Society. There's no unbroken line of progress to Ancient Greece for example. We're really only talking 350 years of effort here, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things, especially when the grand scheme of things is nothing short of 'explaining everything.' I imagine we are due for many more scientific revolutions that will make a lot of modern beliefs seem antiquated. Its arrogant to think otherwise and having a more agnostic view seems like the wisest course here instead of angry know-it-all-ism.
- bbctol 10y ago
  It blows my mind how many science/STEM students dismiss the whole field of philosophy as meaningless navel-gazing, separate from the real work of data-gathering. And then we wonder why there's a reproducibility crisis...you have to be taught philosophy of science!
- DougN7 10y ago
  The keywords I watch for are "but now we know..." As soon as I hear or read that, I'm pretty sure there is some over confidence to follow.
- dilemma 10y ago
  >It seems science is taught in a way that's just long tirades of endless hero worship, instead from a philosophical perspective of what it can and can't do for us. For evidence of this, see the comment in this thread referencing McCarthy as if that meant anything. As if that man's opinion was itself science. In reality, "science" does not exist. There is a scientific method, but there is no thing called "science." What we have instead is a specific materialist worldview, created by modern institutions, that is just as much based in blind faith as any religion is.
svanderbleek 10y ago
are there people who excel at software design? they need to write books and papers to explain how they do it because it's still the wild west out here.
- rabidrat 10y ago
  There are people who excel at software design, but they don't excel at teaching others how to design software. So the best you get is, you can hire them.

bbctol 10y ago

Michael Graziano is a highly respected neuroscientist and psychologist (and a pretty good novelist, too.) Not to say that this isn't a real problem, and that trying to understand the brain through current engineering concepts can lead us into mental traps, but this is a guy with extensive experience and understanding of this particular system.

kazinator 10y ago

I must not excel at software design because I don't believe I can fully understand even a sufficiently complicated man-made software system.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

I think its even bigger than that. Lots of kids into STEM and the sciences seem to grow into adults with some really dismissive views of anything that isn't STEM and follow a fairly simplistic and reductionist approach to explaining the world. Often making grand and sweeping generalizations that sound "sciency" and pretending there's no mystery in the world and that human knowledge in 2016 is near perfect. Its bizarre and makes me wonder what about education created people with this mindset. Is it how we teach the sciences perhaps? It seems science is taught in a way that's just long tirades of endless hero worship, instead from a philosophical perspective of what it can and can't do for us. I also find academics don't often like to discuss failed scientific policies and beliefs of the past nor how science really is its infancy considering out modern system can only track itself back to the Royal Society. There's no unbroken line of progress to Ancient Greece for example. We're really only talking 350 years of effort here, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things, especially when the grand scheme of things is nothing short of 'explaining everything.' I imagine we are due for many more scientific revolutions that will make a lot of modern beliefs seem antiquated. Its arrogant to think otherwise and having a more agnostic view seems like the wisest course here instead of angry know-it-all-ism.

bbctol 10y ago
It blows my mind how many science/STEM students dismiss the whole field of philosophy as meaningless navel-gazing, separate from the real work of data-gathering. And then we wonder why there's a reproducibility crisis...you have to be taught philosophy of science!
DougN7 10y ago
The keywords I watch for are "but now we know..." As soon as I hear or read that, I'm pretty sure there is some over confidence to follow.
dilemma 10y ago
>It seems science is taught in a way that's just long tirades of endless hero worship, instead from a philosophical perspective of what it can and can't do for us. For evidence of this, see the comment in this thread referencing McCarthy as if that meant anything. As if that man's opinion was itself science. In reality, "science" does not exist. There is a scientific method, but there is no thing called "science." What we have instead is a specific materialist worldview, created by modern institutions, that is just as much based in blind faith as any religion is.

svanderbleek 10y ago

are there people who excel at software design? they need to write books and papers to explain how they do it because it's still the wild west out here.

rabidrat 10y ago
There are people who excel at software design, but they don't excel at teaching others how to design software. So the best you get is, you can hire them.