From: RT

To:  Editor

Date: 07 Aug 2004

 

I had to respond to this quote.

 

Interestingly, the inability to integrate relational and hierarchical processing is similar to the division between the theories that define the principles governing the behavior of objects in the universe. There are two incompatible theories, the theory of general relativity governing large objects and the quantum theory governing very small objects like subatomic particles. The problem is that there should only need to be one unified theory governing all objects.

--Michael David, The Marriage of XML to ANSI SQL, datawarehouse.com

 

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read it. Smacking my head against the wall seemed the next, best choice.

 

I went to Mr. David's web site to read the article, from which you pulled the above quote, to try and get a better understanding. I could not get past the first paragraph. I skipped to the end of the article and read his bio: Staff Scientist; twenty years of experience designing commercial nonprocedural heterogeneous database access products. I'm still scratching my head. What exactly are "commercial nonprocedural heterogeneous database access products?"

 

What I find appalling is his complete lack of knowledge of physics. I studied physics. Particle physics is a hobby of mine. I have gone to lectures on the topic, one most notably by Dr. Leon Lederman. Michael David knows very little about particle physics, quantum theory and unified theories.

 

Ø       First, there are more than one theory, not two as he states.

 

Grand Unified Theories - there are several

·         Supersymmetry

·         Superstring Theory - Time magazine called it "Theory of Everything"

·         Flatness

·         Dark Matter

·         Inflation

 

There are others. Physics is a discipline fertile with ideas and lots and lots of theories.

 

Ø       Second, his appalling use of grammar, "...the quantum theory governing very small objects like subatomic particles." This phrase is wrong. Why, because Quantum Theory governs SUBATOMIC PARTICLES. There is no "like" about it, they are SUBATOMIC PARTICLES.

 

Ø       Lastly, you omit from your quote the part I loved the best from his article, "This all-encompassing theory has been referred to as the Theory of Everything which supposes a missing common element that unifies both or makes them compatible." The problem here is that these "unifying theories," HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN!! Not one. Thus there is no seamless integration, as Michael David would have it. What a way to build the foundation for your argument, by getting the foundation all wrong.

 

After that, I had very little reason to read they rest of his article. I glanced over it but walked away wondering, how? How can someone be such an idiot.

 

My reference for the above physics statements comes, from among other material, the book entitled, "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman, published by Delta, 1993.

 

I may send Mr. David an email pointing out the flaws in his physics statements. But then, it may fail on deaf ears. If I'm still annoyed, tomorrow, I will.

 

 

From: Fabian Pascal

To: RT

In fact, I do have a series of presentations about such "pearls" called To Laugh or Cry? Fundamental Fallacies in Database Management on the Education page. So welcome to the club. A very small club [and getting smaller].

When I was in academia I had on the door of my office several lists of buzzwords in my field at that time, which were very "hot". If you picked one of each at random and combined them into one title, it would make some sort of sense, and you would get your paper published, regardless of the actual content. This happens much more often in the IT world and it's much easier, because the audience is mostly ignorant and you can impress it with buzzwords [and pompous acronyms].

Such use of language is useful though, because it tells an educated person what  can be ignored: a knowledgeable database specialist would not use it.

I argued many times that the dismissal of knowledge and reason is not limited to one field, and that ignorance does not stop the uneducated to make pronouncements on topics of which they know nothing (most recently in my Lenin, Trotsky, and Freedom from the Tyranny of Knowledge and Reason). That's because they're Unskilled and Unaware of It. And as I stress over and over again, this is a systemic problem, not one of this or that individual or organization.

As to his grammar errors, see what I mean? [Would you trust pronouncements on quantum theory by somebody who does not have his grammar right?]

I omitted the remaining part because I did not want to get too much into physics and my point was made without it.

If I detect erroneous pronouncements by somebody in one area where I happen to know something about, I will not risk reading his pronouncements in other areas where I don't, for obvious reasons.

 

Ed. Note: For how deep down the drain discourse is getting in the industry, see the more recent Slashing a Slashdot Exchange Part 1, and the forthcoming sequels. Any society in which ignorance and stupidity are considered virtues to boast about is, for all practical purposes, finished, as is made pretty clear by the systemic corruption of most of its institutions.

 

 

Posted 9/10/04