From: SS 

Date: 8 Jun 2004 

To: Editor

 

I’ve just read the article On XML and Foundation Knowledge and I wonder about the thoughts and sayings from Fabian Pascal to JG. JG says that he "...learned product specifics first only to later come back and learn how those product specifics fit into the overall fundamental puzzle.” I'm not entirely certain that's a bad approach. Children learn specifics first and generalities later, why not adults?

 

Pascal counters "I can spend about half an hour explaining why it's a bad idea. Children learn by trial and error and that's a very inefficient way for adults."

 

I now would like to know what he believes how all the great natural scientist or scientists have come to their findings and insights. Does he believe they learned generalities first and then specifics? For instance Einstein with his theories or Kepler with his astronomic equations? These are only two examples but scientists often behave like children and learn by trial and error because at that time there are no generalities yet.

 

 

From: Fabian Pascal

To: SS

 

If you know the distinction between induction and deduction, you know what I mean. That's why normally we don't expect children to make science, but rather to learn science first.

 

Einstein knew the history and fundamentals of his field before he was able to make his contributions. Businessmen and IT practitioners do not. They keep reinventing wheels, and square wheels at that.

 

Ed. Note: Perhaps the most pertinent response to SS’s comments is, of course, that insofar as data management is concerned, there actually is a “generality”—the relational model—which is being ignored due to the fact that a vast majority of practitioners only learn products—they are neither required, nor inclined to learn about it. This is tantamount to staying in “child mode” throughout their careers (the JG case is rather rare and practically a matter of luck).

 

 

Posted 08/20/04