Someone proposes a mechanism by which Scrum is problematic. “In Scrum, product owners ought to empower the team to advocate for technical quality, but in many

Someone proposes a mechanism by which Scrum is problematic. “In Scrum, product owners ought to empower the team to advocate for technical quality, but in many Scrums, this does not happen, and short-term, quality-ignorant changes to the timeline rule instead.” This is a claim about the mechanism of Scrum’s failure. And in response someone offers a non-falsifiable defense, like, “whenever that occurs, it’s always the company’s pre-existing badness to blame. Never Scrum.” Can you really not see how this is completely different from an unqualified claim that correlation implies causation? Your comment comes off like you think it has some rhetorical punch, but I invite you to reconsider that you migh have completely missed the entire point.