Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Logical fallacies in software engineering

artur-martsinkovskyi.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#21

Post by wolfgke »

marcosdumay wrote: post #8
johnr2 wrote: post #5

"both at perception, dexterity and mind work" Off-by-one error ;-)

Isn't this correct in English? The equivalent on my first language (Portuguese) is very clearly wrong, but I've seen the English version in more than one book.

> Isn't this correct in English?

I, as a non-native English speaker, would write

"thrice at perception, dexterity and mind work"

(instead of "both at perception, dexterity and mind work"), but I am not sure whether this is overly formal (it is, in my experience, often the case that when you try to translate how you would express something in German into English, you land at something overly formal, since in German the commonly used language register is more formal than in English).

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#22

Post by zzzcpan »

shaki-dora wrote: post #12

The concept of "fallacies" is somewhat overdone, to the point where I'm tempted to coin the "fallacy fallacy". They are used far too often to shut down some debate: Oh, you want to do this yourself? Not-Invented-Here-Syndrom! Oh, you want to buy from a reputable vendor? Appealing to authority! I believe the "appeal to authority" fallacy is especially misguided: it's impossible to verify every statement we rely on fro…

Appeal to authority is a fallacy exactly because you can't trust New York Times just as you can't trust @TheyAreTryingToKillYou241234, but you do. An authoritative opinion is not an evidence.

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#23

Post by tide_ad »

zzzcpan wrote: post #17
tide_ad wrote: post #11

> Appeal to Authority .... When explaining practices or opinions on some subjects of sofware development, project management, operations, e.t.c, people tend to use somebody elses saying, blogpost, conference talk or other claim as a foundation for justification of their own decision. I consciously do this these days because other people are gullible. I consciously know "well this isn't balanced", but there is no need…

Define works. Appeal to authority destroys engineering, scientific, critical thinking and decision making. You can't appeal to authority your way into subject experts, they might even openly criticize you for your bullshit.

> You can't appeal to authority your way into subject experts, they might even openly criticize you for your bullshit.

They might, and they might also ignore you without a source because they are so focused on discrediting everyone thats not themselves.

> Define works.

Gets people to more quickly agree with your line of reasoning, by masquerading your line of reasoning as a non-independent thought and simply finding something that agrees with you on Google.

I know that search engines mostly just agree with you. Other people don't.

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#24

Post by humanrebar »

V-2 wrote: post #19
Udik wrote: post #13

No true Scotsman's: - We followed agile methodology and failed miserably. - Then you weren't using real agile.

I come across the reverse version, too. I mean, the fallacy of labels - situations just like your example, but where (say) Agile methodology was INDEED not properly followed, despite being branded as such.

Agile is a set of values, not a methodology. You're thinking of scrum or extreme programming or kanban or something more specific.

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#25

Post by austincheney »

Udik wrote: post #18
stupidcar wrote: post #7

The "nirvana fallacy" is definitely one I commonly see on Hacker News. The ease with which people jump from "thing x is imperfect" to "thing x is worthless" is mind-boggling. This is usually coupled with familiarity bias, where the flaws of any existing technology are discounted vs. those of a new technology.

A fallacy I've noticed often in sw engineering, and might fall under the nirvana fallacy definition, is the assumption that there is one best tool for doing things- the one that supports the largest amount of use cases. An metaphor I like to use is that of the software engineer buying a tank instead of a car: fits more people, drives on all terrain, basically indestructible, and in case an enemy is blocking the road…

Speaking of tanks and fallacies... https://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Wars-Reformers-Challenge-Gua...

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#26

Post by Shish2k »

stupidcar wrote: post #7

The "nirvana fallacy" is definitely one I commonly see on Hacker News. The ease with which people jump from "thing x is imperfect" to "thing x is worthless" is mind-boggling. This is usually coupled with familiarity bias, where the flaws of any existing technology are discounted vs. those of a new technology.

Also frequently combined as "Thing X is known to be imperfect, so thing Y which we've never tried before must be better" D:

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#27

Post by matt4077 »

zzzcpan wrote: post #22
shaki-dora wrote: post #12

The concept of "fallacies" is somewhat overdone, to the point where I'm tempted to coin the "fallacy fallacy". They are used far too often to shut down some debate: Oh, you want to do this yourself? Not-Invented-Here-Syndrom! Oh, you want to buy from a reputable vendor? Appealing to authority! I believe the "appeal to authority" fallacy is especially misguided: it's impossible to verify every statement we rely on fro…

Appeal to authority is a fallacy exactly because you can't trust New York Times just as you can't trust @TheyAreTryingToKillYou241234, but you do. An authoritative opinion is not an evidence.

So how are you supposed to make an informed choice on vaccination? You can't trust the NYT, apparently, and probably not the New England Journal of Medicine, either?

Do you just count the number of sources supporting the different views? That would seem to be some other, equally bad, form of fallacy.

Is there any sort of evidence that is valid in your critical eyes that can be transmitted electronically? Or does anyone faced with the choice to vaccinate their children have to run their own randomised clinical trial? That would seem prohibitively cumbersome, and also logically inconsistent because you would have to find a few thousand people willing to participate in your trial who shouldn't trust you not to poison them, by your logic.

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#28

Post by diNgUrAndI »

> Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy. Some engineers may use such fallacy, exposing all the technicalities of their job to cover incompetence and justify failure in rolling out feature in time.

I think experienced co-workers can tell whether you are exaggerating or telling the truth. I found someone has the tendencies to elaborate on stuffs in an emotional way. This is especially common in junior devs. From my experience, most senior devs tend to be more reserved and careful about their words.

What do you guys think?

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#29

Post by mgkimsal »

afranchuk wrote: post #16

I'm constantly fighting the sunk cost fallacy with managers, I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, or maybe it has been but in a different form?

"Individuals commit the sunk cost fallacy when they continue a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort)"

WRT software projects, what's the opposite? When I bring up sunk cost, the assumption is that I'm lobbying for wholesale rewrite. In some (not all) cases I am - take the lessons learned, maybe some algorithms, data, whatever, and rebuild.

The standard rejoinder to that is "what makes you think you're so much smarter/better than the previous team?" Well... sometimes I maybe am. Or... the strength of the current team is just... more demonstrable? Or... there's no one left from the previous team that even understands the previous system, so ever day spent is often wasted in just trying to learn what they did, only to find out... hey - they really just had no clue what they were doing. We've all seen this (and, early on, I likely was in the position of the offending party a few times).

But sunk cost fallacy is a real thing. How do you combat it?

Re: Logical fallacies in software engineering

#30

Post by [deleted] »

shaki-dora wrote: post #12

The concept of "fallacies" is somewhat overdone, to the point where I'm tempted to coin the "fallacy fallacy". They are used far too often to shut down some debate: Oh, you want to do this yourself? Not-Invented-Here-Syndrom! Oh, you want to buy from a reputable vendor? Appealing to authority! I believe the "appeal to authority" fallacy is especially misguided: it's impossible to verify every statement we rely on fro…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN