There's some sort of point about experts in general which I am not sure exactly how to articulate but I think is relevant. I'm going to try to klutz through it anyway.<p>There are lots of fields where fundamental theories are relatively weak or have poor predictive powers. Macroeconomics, climatology, nutrition etc. Basically, we don't have real Knowledge. We have a bunch of data and a bunch of theories. Some of the theories that aren't very general or aren't very applicable to real life scenarios <i>are</i> predictive but relatively useless. We know that certain nutrients have some importance. We know that restricting caloric intake leads to weight loss. We know that money supply, inflation and other things are linked together in various ways. The theories don't answer the questions we want then to with any kind of certainty. Still, we sometimes need to make decisions and some knowledge is better than none so we go and find experts anyway. There <i>are</i> people who are experts. They're experts in the study and they are aware of our knowledge in the field such as it is. But they don't have real answers because there just aren't useful answers to be had at this point. All of medicine was like this until pretty recently.<p>When Darwin published "The Origin of Species" evolutionary biology came to being as a different kind of field. One where the knowledge was real and the theory predictive. The theory was fundamental and strong. Darwin could make claims & predictions with a lot of confidence. Subsequent biologists could keep making predictions and when new discoveries (like genetics) were made, they were found to be consistent with the predictions of evolutionary biology. In fact, if they hadn't been, a careful researcher would probably assume that the mistake was in their own conclusions, not in Darwins. So if Chimpanzees are closer to humans than to Gorillas, we share common acceptors not shared with Gorillas and the distinction between Humans and Apes (if we want to keep Apes as a category) is morphological (which is allowed by Darwin) rather than one of proximity on a family tree.<p>Darwin was careful. He didn't publish until he was sure. If he didn't been sure we wouldn't have published. There are lots of Darwins in every one of the former type of field. They haven't discovered real Knowledge that can tell them what to do in an economic recession or what people should eat so they shut their mouth and keep looking. They are still experts but their expert opinion is "I dunno." That doesn't register as expertise so we go on to find someone that will explain about Aggregate demand, antinflamatory diets, carbohydrates or something like that.<p>Development methodologies, executive compensation, distributed companies etc. are in the category of things that we don't have real "scientific" knowledge about. Most business-ey knowledge is like that.<p>Now it sounds like I'm bashing people who talk about this stuff and I don't mean to be (hence my disclaimer at the start). I'm just pointing out that our knowledge in different fields is different. Joel Spolsky is very insightful in his essays about the Software industry, for example. But there are certain people that are comfortable with anecdote and generalities and assertions that may turn out to be untrue. There are certain people (like Darwin) who are not. If we're talking about development methodologies, the people we here from are self selected. They are comfortable making grand statements, manifestos and such even though they may be wrong.<p>That's still useful and certainly interesting, but there is a big category of people we aren't hearing from and they are relevant to the discussion.
But without any way of correcting for this silent majority, or any sort of predictable systematic tendency, so what? We don't know everything? There's a lot of things we don't know, and on most topics we hear from only a small fraction of people, both expert and otherwise. Why is this worth pointing out?<p>(The point of knowing about things like publication biases in science is that they <i>are</i> systematic: once you know about publication bias, you know that estimates are on net, higher than they should be, and this is something you can apply to evaluating science that you read.)
We see this in the diving community too, there are a bunch of forums where people have prolific arguments, usually about which agency or brand is best, stuff that has been done to death and barely matters anyway. Whereas if you get off the Internet and go to dive sites you will find a ton of friendly people who have a thousand dives and are happy to share real knowledge, who never bother to go on the forums.
One place in which this problem was particularly apparent was (is? I haven't kept up with it for a while) the PHP community. PHP gets a bad rap as a terrible language, but a large part of this was the ease of beginning the learning process with PHP; download [X|W|M]AMPP, spin up an Apache instance, and get just dive in. What this led to was a lot of sub-par instruction material from people who didn't have a solid grounding in design principles, or "tutorials" created from people who had little experience.<p>Despite this, there were clearly experts who could "finely craft" PHP applications. Although Facebook may not be the best example, it is the first one that comes to mind.
That's why I tried to stop caring about the [current] web and embraced the future by reading mailing list or irc channels of actual projects. Going close to where things actually happens, raw.
It's true. I'd label it "indirect knowledge hoarding." But the excuses/reasons are usu. most people are busy or don't feel they'd make good teachers.<p>There has to be an incentive / prioritization by the person to do something about it. Also, some people don't even think they're experienced enough.<p>Maybe useful knowledge transfer via teaching or at least reviewing teaching material.
The point that resonated the most with me here was that people need to be given big opportunities to fail without prejudgement, otherwise they'll never build their skillset significantly. Obviously nobody is ever hired in a vacuum, but the takeaway for me was:<p>remember to judge others on their past behaviors, and nothing else.
This seems wrong to me, and fairly obviously wrong.<p>If you take a group X, a certain percentage Y hang out in newsgroups and blog. He himself was part of that Y for Forth.<p>Why would the percentage Y be significantly different for any given language?<p>The number of bloggers/newsgroup users is like a survey, it's not complete, but it's a very good indicator of how popular a language is. The popularity of a language increases its ease of use by a considerable factor (libraries, help, documentation, etc.).<p>Hence Forth being a language no-one uses today, which actually contradicts his point, rather than illustrating it as he seems to think. Elizabeth Rather was right, there were people doing interesting things with Forth, but there weren't many.<p>And for most of us, that's an important thing to consider when using any tool.<p>That there is a huge number of bloggers looking down their nose at Perl & C++ simply shows there's something wrong with both those languages. It doesn't mean that they're not still useful though, nor does it mean something else solved the problem until a lot of 'I used Go/Rust/Haskell/Whatever to make non-trivial program' posts appear.