Technical Debate

It seems to be very difficult to have a technical debate in general. This is at least an experience which these very pages, which have unfortunately developed into a sort of blog, would enforce. But even if the inadequation of the popular tools offers one level of explanation, some cultural aspects have a greater impact yet. By this I mean a folk theory (a traditional prejudice) that there is no place for debate in technical matters.

I admit that folk theory is a derogatory term. I use it to stress the matter of fact refusal to take the prejudice itself under scrutiny, which powerfully hinders the development of any debate. Discussions held in technical forums typically aim at reaching fast a definitive end, by disclosing the truth. Proponents are thus assumed to rank along a scale of expertise, and only two models of discussion are considered:

• the question and answer, in which the script distributes humility or ridicule to the first part, helpfulness or arrogance to the other;
• the rooster fight, in which one expert shows his superiority, wishfully but seldom, by debunking his adversary's arguments.

The real debate, which would result in the synthesis of novel insight, by confronting differing and necessarily partial (nobody is a specialist of everything) viewpoints, is thus pratically impossible.

The assumption that there preexists a truth to be disclosed, is never challenged.

This is paradoxical, if one considers the bridgehead function of software technology. SCM is both a paradigm of novelty, and a discipline in its infancy, having not yet recapitulated its phylogeny (in a Haeckelian acception).

-- MarcGirod - 05 Jul 2008