4 ms·

I believe we have an open and shut case of the No True Programmer fallacy.

derefr 13y ago
The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because "Scotsman" is an artificial category. There is no phenomenological consequence of being a "Scotsman"; therefore, its properties can be assigned arbitrarily, based on first assigning someone to the set (by marriage, say), and then remarking on the thing all the members of the new, expanded set have in common. (A clear parallel would be a "No True HN Member" fallacy.) However, if you believe that there is any empirically-detectable property that makes a someone a better programmer when they have more of it, then "programmer" is a natural category, not an artificial one. It's something where, if we washed away the word for it, we'd end up re-creating the word, as a handle to describe that obvious cluster of things which are unlike other things but like one-another. Being a programmer has phenomenological consequences--you can determine who is or isn't a programmer using games or tests which don't have anything to do with programming trivia, and without mentioning that "potential for ability to program" is what you're testing for. In any natural category, you'll have false negatives and false positives: things that are identified as X but don't have the property that puts them in the X natural-category, and things that aren't identified as X, but which do have the property. There are many False Programmers. There are also False Not-Programmers: people who don't think, or know, that they're programmers, but who are nevertheless. This is true of every natural category. There are people who think they can sing but can't, and people who think they can't sing but can. There are professional singers who can't sing, even though they "are" singing. When we say "can sing", we imply the edifice of a market, and competition; we really mean "can sing to a level where we'd pay them more for their singing than a randomly-selected member of the population." In other words, they "can sing objectively-well." There are people who "can program objectively-well." They are, in the terms of the natural category, both the True Programmers, and the False Not-Programmers. There is no fallacy at work.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Sorry, what is your test for being a programmer? I'm quite curious to hear what more is required beyond writing software, or even how somebody can be a programmer without having written a line of software in their lives.
  - delian66 13y ago
    Writing software well (or even reading well existing software ... which is a must, when someone needs to learn, or just maintain old code), seems to require a combination of cognitive skills. That combination can be detected, even when a person has no previous programming experience: http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/ http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/ . From the linked homepage: >> We (Saeed Dehnadi, Richard Bornat) have discovered a test >> which divides programming sheep from non-programming goats. >> This test predicts ability to program with very high accuracy >> before the subjects have ever seen a program or a programming language. Edit: added the note about reading software.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy because "Scotsman" is an artificial category. There is no phenomenological consequence of being a "Scotsman"; therefore, its properties can be assigned arbitrarily, based on first assigning someone to the set (by marriage, say), and then remarking on the thing all the members of the new, expanded set have in common. (A clear parallel would be a "No True HN Member" fallacy.) However, if you believe that there is any empirically-detectable property that makes a someone a better programmer when they have more of it, then "programmer" is a natural category, not an artificial one. It's something where, if we washed away the word for it, we'd end up re-creating the word, as a handle to describe that obvious cluster of things which are unlike other things but like one-another. Being a programmer has phenomenological consequences--you can determine who is or isn't a programmer using games or tests which don't have anything to do with programming trivia, and without mentioning that "potential for ability to program" is what you're testing for. In any natural category, you'll have false negatives and false positives: things that are identified as X but don't have the property that puts them in the X natural-category, and things that aren't identified as X, but which do have the property. There are many False Programmers. There are also False Not-Programmers: people who don't think, or know, that they're programmers, but who are nevertheless. This is true of every natural category. There are people who think they can sing but can't, and people who think they can't sing but can. There are professional singers who can't sing, even though they "are" singing. When we say "can sing", we imply the edifice of a market, and competition; we really mean "can sing to a level where we'd pay them more for their singing than a randomly-selected member of the population." In other words, they "can sing objectively-well." There are people who "can program objectively-well." They are, in the terms of the natural category, both the True Programmers, and the False Not-Programmers. There is no fallacy at work.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Sorry, what is your test for being a programmer? I'm quite curious to hear what more is required beyond writing software, or even how somebody can be a programmer without having written a line of software in their lives.
- delian66 13y ago
  Writing software well (or even reading well existing software ... which is a must, when someone needs to learn, or just maintain old code), seems to require a combination of cognitive skills. That combination can be detected, even when a person has no previous programming experience: http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/ http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/ . From the linked homepage: >> We (Saeed Dehnadi, Richard Bornat) have discovered a test >> which divides programming sheep from non-programming goats. >> This test predicts ability to program with very high accuracy >> before the subjects have ever seen a program or a programming language. Edit: added the note about reading software.