4 ms·

Is it necessary to provide randomly controlled trial/other scientific data to talk about things you don't like in a programming language? Do you have the same s

Is it necessary to provide randomly controlled trial/other scientific data to talk about things you don't like in a programming language? Do you have the same standard for talking about things you do like in a programming language? My only problem with the article is that the hyperbole/sarcasm (e.g. "I've given irrefutable scientific evidence...") is not so well done.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Rational evidence doesn't have to be scientific. But. Even first hand anecdotal evidence has its limits. It really needs to be blatant to be significant. Second hand anecdotal evidence is even worse. If the phenomenon you want to catch is subtle, you generally a good deal of reliable data. That generally means something "scientific".
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  My point is that people demanding scientific data for criticisms had better do the same when their favorite language gets praised. Of course, personal evidence is less strong than scientific evidence. That much should be obvious to anyone.
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    > My point is that people demanding scientific data for criticisms had better do the same when their favorite language gets praised. Ah, the dreaded double standard. Easy trap. Personally, I avoid it by trying to have objective criteria. I end up with crude and imperfect measures (LOC count, number of defects…), but at least they're not too biased. > personal evidence is less strong than scientific evidence. Actually, this is not necessarily true about first hand personal evidence. While a host of biases are out to cloud your judgement, science can be weak for two reasons: (i) the studies may not amount to much evidence, either because the controlled experiments are also artificial, or because there may not have been much of them (it is quite expensive to do the same project multiple times with arguably similarly skilled teams), or both. (ii) What applies to the majority of people may not apply to you specifically (though you'd better have strong evidence as to why this is the case). Now, second hand personal evidence… that's much harder, because (ii) doesn't apply, you also have to trust whoever is telling you the story, and this story hold far, far less information than what you would have gathered by living it yourself. Still, it may yet be stronger than sufficiently weak scientific evidence. Now, a blog post by a random programmer? Okay, that one is always weaker than science.

loup-vaillant 13y ago

Rational evidence doesn't have to be scientific. But. Even first hand anecdotal evidence has its limits. It really needs to be blatant to be significant. Second hand anecdotal evidence is even worse. If the phenomenon you want to catch is subtle, you generally a good deal of reliable data. That generally means something "scientific".

jamesaguilar 13y ago
My point is that people demanding scientific data for criticisms had better do the same when their favorite language gets praised. Of course, personal evidence is less strong than scientific evidence. That much should be obvious to anyone.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  > My point is that people demanding scientific data for criticisms had better do the same when their favorite language gets praised. Ah, the dreaded double standard. Easy trap. Personally, I avoid it by trying to have objective criteria. I end up with crude and imperfect measures (LOC count, number of defects…), but at least they're not too biased. > personal evidence is less strong than scientific evidence. Actually, this is not necessarily true about first hand personal evidence. While a host of biases are out to cloud your judgement, science can be weak for two reasons: (i) the studies may not amount to much evidence, either because the controlled experiments are also artificial, or because there may not have been much of them (it is quite expensive to do the same project multiple times with arguably similarly skilled teams), or both. (ii) What applies to the majority of people may not apply to you specifically (though you'd better have strong evidence as to why this is the case). Now, second hand personal evidence… that's much harder, because (ii) doesn't apply, you also have to trust whoever is telling you the story, and this story hold far, far less information than what you would have gathered by living it yourself. Still, it may yet be stronger than sufficiently weak scientific evidence. Now, a blog post by a random programmer? Okay, that one is always weaker than science.