Death To Dogmatisim and Pragmatism. Long Live reality.
@ 2008-10-04 17:16:03
Filed under: Personal Philosophy Tech
Most everyone knows what both Pragmatism and Dogmatism both mean, but for those who don't, let me start with the definitions from Wikipedia:
By these definitions it would seem that pragmatism means learning from past mistakes and trying to do things the right way, while dogmatism means doing it however has been decreed by the powers that be. The interesting thing about these definitions and what most people see on paper is that they are not very pragmatic: What is being defined is not how they are used, and thus should probably not be used.
In the engineering world we are faced with side a versus side b. A lot of times this is either people who like language a versus people who like language b or, more commonly people who write code versus people who must keep said code running. Using the latter as the example it's easy to see why there is a disagreement. One side is worried about features and time lines while the second group is worried about stability and security. We can argue all day that they should all be worried about all of those items (and yes, I would agree) but in engineering that would be a very dogmatic view.
One of the goals of pragmatism within engineering organizations is to find the best way to do something. The end result is usually a dogmatic decree that x must be done y way. It seems like pragmatism can not live without dogmatism even when it tries ....
By now it should be clicking as to where I'm going with this. It's not nearly as black and white as most people think when they are pitting dogmatism versus pragmatism. If we ignore the side meanings of both views (which are usually used in naming calling 'Stop being dogmatic!') we can see that there are times where both idealogies make perfect sense. What I believe this ends up meaning is that a combination of the two views must be used with dogmatism defining where and when. Let me explain why dogmatism must rule pragmatism ....
Say your trying to figure out if you should do a security audit of your brand new outsourced Java application. In an organization that allows for pragmatism to define when pragmatism or dogmatism is to be used you get to make the choice. You may be thinking that the dates are coming up fast, and, well, it's written in java so what could possibly go wrong. In your view it doesn't need a security audit. In the same scenario if you decided that dogmatism is the best route and that the security team should review it then they would. As you can see, if a pragmatic view of when each philosophy is used you are introducing chaos. Some applications get audited, some don't. The rhyme and reason is in the head of the person making the decision on which philosophy to follow. You also end up in an area that tends to cause problems ... few people, when given the chance to make their own decision, will defer to someone or something else to make the decision for them .... "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unless you are the dictator, the dictator sucks. If we switch over to dogmatism as the defining philosophy as to when you can be pragmatic and when you must be dogmatic it is clear(er). You have the same issue but the organization has stated that all applications must be audited by the security team. Well, that was simple, it applies to everyone and it's obvious what needs to happen. The same organization may say that when deciding to write a new application you can be pragmatic and choose the language that you think makes the most sense for the problem at hand. This is a much clearer, cleaner, safer and reproducible world.
On a side note I find this quite interesting as it is very similar to the arguments over if absolutes exist. Post modernists generally state that no absolutes exist while modernists and post-post-modernists state they do (but in different ways). The idea being that if no absolutes exist then the rule that no absolutes can not exist, as it is an absolute ("The only rule is there are no rules"). Pragmatism is very much in the same vein. It must be dogmatic in it's definition for it to exist, so even on it's own you could argue that pragmatism is a subset of dogmatism. ... but that is not what this posting is about :-).
Another side note I want to point out is that people see each other in relative terms when it comes to these philosophies. I'd like to believe that I'm pretty close to the center when it comes to the pragmatic versus dogmatic philosophies. I've been accused of being extremely reasonable, dogmatic, pragmatic, and closed minded. Someone who is very pragmatic (which I think would be a bad thing) would see me as dogmatic. Someone who is very dogmatic (which I think would be a bad thing) would see me as pragmatic. A person who is very pragmatic would see someone who was less pragmatic as dogmatic.
The reality is that both philosophies must be used in a clear and defined way (IE: ruled by a dogmatic decree as to when each philosophy is accepted). They both must be used as tools and used when the tool honestly fits the job (not just when the tool might be easier to use for personal reasons).
digg it
seed it
del.icio.us
ma.gnolia
Filed under: Personal Philosophy Tech
Most everyone knows what both Pragmatism and Dogmatism both mean, but for those who don't, let me start with the definitions from Wikipedia:
Pragmatism is a philosophic school generally considered to have originated in the late nineteenth century with Charles Peirce, who first stated the pragmatic maxim. It came to fruition in the early twentieth-century philosophies of William James and John Dewey and, in a more unorthodox manner, in the works of George Santayana. Pragmatists consider practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of both meaning and truth. Other important aspects of pragmatism include anti-Cartesianism, radical empiricism, instrumentalism, anti-realism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism. Dogmatism is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
By these definitions it would seem that pragmatism means learning from past mistakes and trying to do things the right way, while dogmatism means doing it however has been decreed by the powers that be. The interesting thing about these definitions and what most people see on paper is that they are not very pragmatic: What is being defined is not how they are used, and thus should probably not be used.
In the engineering world we are faced with side a versus side b. A lot of times this is either people who like language a versus people who like language b or, more commonly people who write code versus people who must keep said code running. Using the latter as the example it's easy to see why there is a disagreement. One side is worried about features and time lines while the second group is worried about stability and security. We can argue all day that they should all be worried about all of those items (and yes, I would agree) but in engineering that would be a very dogmatic view.
One of the goals of pragmatism within engineering organizations is to find the best way to do something. The end result is usually a dogmatic decree that x must be done y way. It seems like pragmatism can not live without dogmatism even when it tries ....
By now it should be clicking as to where I'm going with this. It's not nearly as black and white as most people think when they are pitting dogmatism versus pragmatism. If we ignore the side meanings of both views (which are usually used in naming calling 'Stop being dogmatic!') we can see that there are times where both idealogies make perfect sense. What I believe this ends up meaning is that a combination of the two views must be used with dogmatism defining where and when. Let me explain why dogmatism must rule pragmatism ....
Say your trying to figure out if you should do a security audit of your brand new outsourced Java application. In an organization that allows for pragmatism to define when pragmatism or dogmatism is to be used you get to make the choice. You may be thinking that the dates are coming up fast, and, well, it's written in java so what could possibly go wrong. In your view it doesn't need a security audit. In the same scenario if you decided that dogmatism is the best route and that the security team should review it then they would. As you can see, if a pragmatic view of when each philosophy is used you are introducing chaos. Some applications get audited, some don't. The rhyme and reason is in the head of the person making the decision on which philosophy to follow. You also end up in an area that tends to cause problems ... few people, when given the chance to make their own decision, will defer to someone or something else to make the decision for them .... "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unless you are the dictator, the dictator sucks. If we switch over to dogmatism as the defining philosophy as to when you can be pragmatic and when you must be dogmatic it is clear(er). You have the same issue but the organization has stated that all applications must be audited by the security team. Well, that was simple, it applies to everyone and it's obvious what needs to happen. The same organization may say that when deciding to write a new application you can be pragmatic and choose the language that you think makes the most sense for the problem at hand. This is a much clearer, cleaner, safer and reproducible world.
On a side note I find this quite interesting as it is very similar to the arguments over if absolutes exist. Post modernists generally state that no absolutes exist while modernists and post-post-modernists state they do (but in different ways). The idea being that if no absolutes exist then the rule that no absolutes can not exist, as it is an absolute ("The only rule is there are no rules"). Pragmatism is very much in the same vein. It must be dogmatic in it's definition for it to exist, so even on it's own you could argue that pragmatism is a subset of dogmatism. ... but that is not what this posting is about :-).
Another side note I want to point out is that people see each other in relative terms when it comes to these philosophies. I'd like to believe that I'm pretty close to the center when it comes to the pragmatic versus dogmatic philosophies. I've been accused of being extremely reasonable, dogmatic, pragmatic, and closed minded. Someone who is very pragmatic (which I think would be a bad thing) would see me as dogmatic. Someone who is very dogmatic (which I think would be a bad thing) would see me as pragmatic. A person who is very pragmatic would see someone who was less pragmatic as dogmatic.
The reality is that both philosophies must be used in a clear and defined way (IE: ruled by a dogmatic decree as to when each philosophy is accepted). They both must be used as tools and used when the tool honestly fits the job (not just when the tool might be easier to use for personal reasons).
digg it
seed it
del.icio.us
ma.gnolia
