Dave said:
Here's an interesting perspective on extreme programming:
http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=11
Don't have time to dig into your net presence, but I'm going to comment
on that page.
While I agree with the necessity of saying many of the things that are
said in that, the charge of "cultism" it levels seems to me to ignore
some facts of life:
] Sense of higher purpose
Is this evil? Is it inherently bad to seek or hope for, or believe in,
a higher purpose?
Sure, using such an assertion of higher purpose as a basis of
discrimination tends to evil, but is the problem in the assertion or
the application?
] Loaded language
It seems to me I can find loaded language in anything, including the
page linked. I'm not sure it's possible to promote or defend any point
of view without resorting to language that is at least potentially
loaded. (The list I am critiquing is, in and of itself, an example of
language that has become loaded.)
Moreover, what is the difference between "loaded language" and mere
differences in assumptions concerning semantics, other than the
question of what is in vogue today?
Is there an way to avoid the problem of semantics?
(This last question is particularly relevant in any forum devoted to
computer languages.)
] Creation of an exclusive community
Again, is this necessarily evil? (Do you see the loaded language in use
here?)
Anytime you have a non-universal context, those who participate in the
context will become, by definition, something of an exclusive
community.
They do not, of course, have to form an exclusionary community.
Enforcing an exclusiveness is usually counter-productive, in addition
to being an exercise in prejudice.
] Persuasive leadership
Is there evil inherent in either persuasion or leading, or even in
doing both at the same time?
Isn't the problem in the direction of the leading, the form or methods
of leadership, the techniques and methods of persuasion?
Truth itself can't be evil, but can sometimes be viewed as cruel
persuasion by some suddenly exposed to some aspect with which they have
not been previously familiar.
Yeah, trying to persuade people against their will can cause problems,
and attempting to lead people to disbelieve what is true is just plain
bad. But those are not the only uses of persuasive leadership.
(Debating whether to point out that arguing against argumentation is an
exercise in reflexive counterfuge.)
] Revisionism
Again, is it inherently evil?
As an engineer, I have been taught to celebrate the principle of
step-wise refinement.
But, looking at the bottom line, I do not know any mortals who know
every truth there is.
It may be possible to know every practical truth within a small
context, but when one leaves that context, some of the truths of the
small context lose relevance, some shift in their expression or
application. And there will be other truths which were not known or
applicable in the small context. The truths themselves may not change,
but our view and understanding of them does.
There is absolute truth, but it is very difficult for us to get such a
perfect view that our view never needs revision. Even if I can imagine
living a thousand years, I can be pretty sure there's going to be
plenty of unknowns left.
Put in the negative, if absolute truth could be known to a degree
beyond revision by people who have a life expectancy of less than a
hundred years, what use would absolute truth be, even to the one person
capable of comprehending it all in such a short time, much less to the
rest of the human race, and to any other intelligent beings that might
exist somewhere?
] Aura of sacred science
Granted that most people are familiar with the semantic of the phrase
currently in vogue, I should note that the original meaning of "sacred"
is not so much something limited to the use of a high priesthood, but
simply the assertion of limits and the reminder of the evils of misuse.
There are things which we, as a society, limit to the use of those
trained in their uses (and often we overset the limits, even in modern
times). But there have always been sacred things ordinary people use,
being cautioned not to misuse them.
Science is definitely something we should be careful to use
appropriately rather than misuse.
One very inappropriate misuse of science is the assertion that science
itself is beyond the common man, but, as I said, most people are
familiar with that sense these days.
In times past, "sacred freedom" meant that we should defend our freedom
and not abuse it, nor abuse others with it. In those times, I think
"sacred science" meant almost the opposite of what it is assumed to
mean now.
Not meaning to dump on anyone, but this method of analysis by listing
the "occult" attributes of some feature of society is one of my pet
peeves.
