ON VOCIFEROUS IGNORANCE

There is massive ignorance in the database field, but the vociferous kind (VI) is the domain of a special breed, and is characterized by one or more of the following:

1. Lack of knowledge and understanding of, and appreciation for data fundamentals in general, and relational concepts, principles and methods in particular

2. Unwillingness to let 1 stand in the way of pronouncing extensively on the subject

3. Inability and/or unwillingness to address evidence/proof of 1, and/or to reason

4. Lack of interest—often admitted—in truth and correctness

5. Primary focus on self promotion and appeasement of the industry by riding fashion fads, or telling (uninformed) audiences what they want to hear

2 is the vociferous part. The combination of 1 and 2 characterizes those who are Unskilled and Unaware of It. Frankfurt defined 4 as bullshitting. Bob Badour refers to 5 as “self-aggrandizing ignorance (see All Hail Bob).

VI would not be much of a problem in a properly educated industry (and society); indeed, it would hardly occur, let alone cause damage. But given the sad state of education and a majority of practitioners without foundation knowledge, VI may not be detectable, which is where the danger lies. VI is often accompanied by magic wands e.g. “forget all that theoretical stuff”, “whatever tools you’re already using or vendors come up with are the right ones”, “cookbooks” of recipes that obviate the need for learning and thinking, and so on (see, for example, the links listed below; for the consequences for practice based on such advice—by proponents such as Scott Ambler and Curt Monash, references available upon request—see A Simple Database Design Problem and On Multivalue Databases).

Obviously, VI is not in the public interest and must, therefore, be exposed. Yet watch any online exchange polluted by VI—which these days means practically all exchanges (the To Laugh or Cry section has plenty of examples)—and you’ll encounter constant complaints of such exposure as “insults” and “ad-hominem attacks”. But the complaints completely ignore that the VI is demonstrated repeatedly with evidence, which defies such accusations. For example, in Best Way to Handle dbdebunk some agreed with a complaint by Dawn Wolthuis that I “mistreated” her on this site (see Dawn Wolthuis’ Proof), and that Bob Badour called her a vociferous ignoramus and wanted to “get her out of town” (whatever that means). Yet the fact is that whatever she calls mistreatment is systematic technical and logical debunking of almost everything she argues and which she does not counter, because she cannot (she accused others who proved her ignorance and stupidity of “rape”, see Why all the max length constraints?)

Those who exhibit VI are oblivious to the flaws (often bordering on the absurd) in their own arguments even after they are pointed out to them again and again. Therefore, the question is how much time and effort should knowledgeable professionals spend engaging those who are neither interested in foundation knowledge (often by their own admission), nor capable of basic reasoning? Is there any limit to how much nonsense should be engaged, and for how long must it be proven so again and again before the appropriate conclusion of VI can be drawn and explicitly stated? If properly reached, such a conclusion is not an insult, but a fact to which an unsuspecting public must be alerted. Yet many of those unsuspecting and insufficiently informed to assess claims and counterclaims seem to think there are no limits whatsoever (see, for example, All Hail Bob), despite Diarrheic Replies intended to wear critics down. To them everything is just personal opinions or preferences, and anything is appropriate, regardless of how ignorant, stupid, and irresponsible it is (indeed, they dump accusations of ad-hominem and insults—confusing the two—to distract from the substance of the criticism, because they do not possess the knowledge or intellect to engage it). But democracy and total freedom is for the political, not technical sphere, but it is in the latter that it is increasingly lacking, due, in fact, to the same educational failure).

Online communities offer the following advice on handling the phenomenon known as trolls:

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

Now, by no means is VI the same as “trollness”, but any competent, reasoning professional—a fast disappearing breed—who has ever engaged VI cannot help identifying with that advice; at some point she/he discovers, as I did a long time ago, that VI is a lost cause. The problem is, however, that unlike trollness, VI may win even when it is ignored, and the public may lose. If not countered, VI cannot, in the absence of proper education, be recognized as such, and may appear reasonable. Hence the dilemma: on the one hand, engaging VI is a lost cause, resulting in enhanced, but undeserved publicity for its exhibitors, while ignoring it leaves the average practitioner vulnerable, the lack of counter-arguments creating the impression that there aren’t any.

There is no way around Calling a Spade a Spade. Alerting the public of VI without getting mired in its morass is much more important than any offense taken by those who, by disregarding knowledge and intellect as prerequisites for taking public positions, forfeit their right to be engaged.

Here’s some examples of VI whose systematic and active exhibitors deserve induction in the Hall (if you don’t know who or why, education on data fundamentals is in order).

· Parts Explosion with Repeated Subtrees

· Monash Balderdash

· Dawn Wolthuis’ “Proof”

· Why all the max length constraints?

· Storing derived and derivable data

· When “Fowl” Is All They’ve Got

· The Myth of Data Integrity

· Scott Ambler and His Strawman

· The OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

· Concept Oriented Programming

· Gardner to DBAs, BI Vendors: Reinvent Yourselves

UPDATE: I have often claimed that the sad bottom-of-the barrel state of the data management field is (a) but one component of the galloping descent of western culture and society into oblivion, which is (b) systemic and (c) driven by a dismissal of knowledge and reason and (d) a collapse of the educational system. It is this process that proliferates vociferous ignorance.

Data management is hardly the only component crumbling from this disease. I came across this example from philosophy. In reading the exchange, substitute data management for philosophy and any of the VIs from the links above for Philip, and you’ll see what I mean.

Last updated 11/01/06