Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 388

Expand Messages
  • Mary Poppendieck
    The Scientific Method is fundamentally an exercise in empirical thinking. Calling it deterministic makes no sense to me. What we should be trying to do is
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 28, 2003
      The Scientific Method is fundamentally an exercise in empirical
      thinking. Calling it deterministic makes no sense to me. What we
      should be trying to do is move the principles behind the Scientific
      Method into software development: study, experiment, learn, don't jump
      to conclusions, adapt you thinking to feedback from experiments. What's
      wrong with that?

      Mary Poppendieck
      www.poppendieck.com
      952-934-7998
      Author of Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit

      Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:53 -0400
      From: "Ken Schwaber" <ken.schwaber@...>
      Subject: Scrum and Process Improvement

      I'm working on an article about why people have so much trouble
      understanding Scrum, even me. I put it up on my website and welcome any
      comments. www.controlchaos.com/scrumhard.pdf.
      Ken Schwber
    • Marco Abis
      Mary, we must be aware that every model and every theory are approximations. We know that our analisys methods and logic thinking cannot explain the complexity
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 28, 2003
        Mary,

        we must be aware that every model and every theory are approximations. We know that our analisys methods and logic thinking cannot explain the complexity of a phenomenon in every single aspect and the Scientific Method usually isolates a (relativity) small set of phenomenons to build a model to describe that set. Doing so the Scientific Method ignores other events and the model will not give us a complete description of the real situation. Events not considered may have so little effects that considering them would not modify the theory in a significant way (at least at the eye of the researcher).

        Edward Lorenz, in 1961, discovered how much that apparently irrelevant events in reality could be of fundamental importance if not even the most important! Lorenz's experience was about meteorologic simulations but we can find examples also in the well known Newton's mechanic where the effects of air resistance are ignored.

        At 10:34 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
        >The Scientific Method is fundamentally an exercise in empirical
        >thinking. Calling it deterministic makes no sense to me. What we
        >should be trying to do is move the principles behind the Scientific
        >Method into software development: study, experiment, learn, don't jump
        >to conclusions, adapt you thinking to feedback from experiments. What's
        >wrong with that?


        Marco Abis
        http://www.agilityspi.com - Agility SPI: Software Process Improvement
        http://agilemovement.it - Italian Agile Movement
      • Tom Poppendieck
        Marco - I do not quite see the description you gave of the scientific method as much different from the practice of Test Driven Development.
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 28, 2003

          Marco –

           

          I do not quite see the description you gave of the scientific method as much different from the practice of Test Driven Development.  Examining/creating small isolated feature by small isolated feature eventually leads to emergence of a coherent overall design protected by a comprehensive theory/set of programmer tests. 

           

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Marco Abis [mailto:abis@...]
          Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:29 PM
          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 388

           

          Mary,

             we must be aware that every model and every theory are approximations. We know that our analisys methods and logic thinking cannot explain the complexity of a phenomenon in every single aspect and the Scientific Method usually isolates a (relativity) small set of phenomenons to build a model to describe that set. Doing so the Scientific Method ignores other events and the model will not give us a complete description of the real situation. Events not considered may have so little effects that considering them would not modify the theory in a significant way (at least at the eye of the researcher).

          Edward Lorenz, in 1961, discovered how much that apparently irrelevant events in reality could be of fundamental importance if not even the most important! Lorenz's experience was about meteorologic simulations but we can find examples also in the well known Newton's mechanic where the effects of air resistance are ignored.

          At 10:34 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
          >The Scientific Method is fundamentally an exercise in empirical
          >thinking.  Calling it deterministic makes no sense to me.  What we
          >should be trying to do is move the principles behind the Scientific
          >Method into software development:  study, experiment, learn, don't jump
          >to conclusions, adapt you thinking to feedback from experiments.  What's
          >wrong with that?


          Marco Abis
          http://www.agilityspi.com - Agility SPI: Software Process Improvement
          http://agilemovement.it - Italian Agile Movement



          To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.