4 ms·
I mean.. "science" is what works too. If something turns out to be false, we throw it out and say it's not science. This is good. I don't see a problem with thi
by boxed 2y ago
I mean.. "science" is what works too. If something turns out to be false, we throw it out and say it's not science. This is good. I don't see a problem with this at all.
But pushing useless stuff that doesn't work and then leaving, yea that's not agile :P
- giantg2 2y agoScience has proven methodologies to it and those are explicitly taught, followed, and reviewed. Agile coaches offer no real guidance if the bulk of the advice is "do what works". No shit...
- boxed 2y agoThe methodologies were discovered after the fact though. The only real scientific method is "if you are a winner you are with us". In fact, plenty of scientific methodologies are NOT tested and probably super bad, like the modern peer review system, or grant writing/proposal/reviews.
- giantg2 2y agoNeither of those are methodologies for actual science, but rather publication and funding issues. The methodology most closely related to peer reviews would be idea of reproducibility. There are plenty of peer reviewed things that fail reproducibility.
- boxed 2y agoMany people think it's not science if it's not peer reviewed.