WHEN “FOWL” IS ALL THEY’VE GOT

In Upside Down and Backwards I debunked an exchange at SQLTeam.com, which was followed by a reaction thread, Fair or Fowl? [sic]. Now, my articles usually contain substantive criticism which, if wrong, can be proven such. But seldom do I encounter demonstrations to that effect that withstand the simplest scrutiny. The rare attempt to rebut is feeble, often outright wrong, and almost always without evidence. Worse, it is often admitted that I “may” be right (they can’t be sure)—but the problem is my “tone”, which they deem “arrogant”, not sufficiently polite, or “rude”. There are several problems with such claims, all of which are consistent with the continuing process of dumbing down in the industry that I have been documenting and deploring for years in my writings and teaching.

First, as Jonathan Lewis points out, the objective of criticism is not social politeness, but rather technical correctness. The consequences of so much misinformation, for which those who spread it are never taken to task are much, much worse than any “hurt feelings or egos” of the disseminators. The fact is that the state of knowledge and reason is too sorry for even shock therapy to help, but anything less than that—any attempt by even the most patient to educate—would be a hugely prohibitive waste of time (for an excellent example, see if the patient efforts by a few relational proponents to enlighten a bunch of uneducated multi-valued DBMS proponents in Foundations of Relational Theory?) were by any measure more effective than Bob Badour’s calling the spade a spade). In an environment where 80-90% of the information is correct, the need to expose the 10-20% that is not is not acute as nonsense would be obvious. But in one with the inverse ratio, debunking nonsense with no holds barred is the least one can do, not to mention a must.

Second, I have never used foul language, and I dare anybody to locate any such in my writings. It is the people’s own ignorance that offends, I only expose it. The problem is that the amount of BS is overwhelming—a culture-wide, not just industry-wide problem (see also below)—and I am about the only one who persist in exposing it. Anybody knowledgeable who tries the same learns very quickly the price to pay for it, hence the tendency to wonder whether it’s professional, or the ease with which one can be dissuaded from it. With the few who are knowledgeable silenced, it is difficult to accept a reality where the vast majority is wrong, and only one person is right. Such a reality can only be accepted with knowledge and reason, but if those were present there would not be such a reality in the first place, and no need for debunking. A vicious cycle.

Third, when those who are considered, or consider themselves experts, and even have a successful career to boot, are publicly debunked, in the absence of proper knowledge and/or reasoning ability, they cannot rebut on substance. With a majority of users, employers, and trade media knowing even less, eager to ride the latest fad, and unwilling to go against the grain, there is no incentive—carrots or sticks—for them to bother acquiring knowledge (and there isn’t much to do about reason, given the sorry state of education). So they react in the only way they can, the very way that they—falsely!—accuse me of: personal attacks. Worse, unlike me, they use foul language, and offer no iota of justification. So blatant an inconsistency is not exactly a desirable trait for database practitioners. No wonder that the field is in such a sorry state.

Here are a couple of samples from the reaction thread. The first is by one of the most vociferous complainers about my “tone” (see also Note On the Real Blooming Idiot and More on the Real Blooming Idiot).

Rudy: That's not the only problem with his stuff, but it's one of the more annoying. I purposefully don't read him because he's such a loser. Oh, sure, he's likely right, from a theoretical perspective, but hey fabian, who gives a shit? you're an idiot!!!

Is there a more explicit example of Frankfurt’s definition of BS?

Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

--Reader’s review, amazon.com (emphasis added)

In Rudy’s world, he who is right is the loser.

Next, one of the rare attempts to rebut.

Brett: Well, I don't have a problem with the article, just the tone AND the fact that he (or someone that he works with) trolls the Team sote [sic] ... doesn't post, uses the URL in the article, post some outrageous "intellectual" property (at least he references the poster) and then goes on to regurgitate what basically the collective SQLTeam responded to, and with NO reference to the team members who took issue with the original post. That's my first pet peeve.

The second is that the answer will always be "it depends". It's not clearly stated in the article, but the inference is toward OLAP, but the seems to be conveniently left out.

Also, what's the timing of the information. Does an Organization need to know of a change the instant it happens? Is a day lag ok? Can the hierarchy be built overnight and denormalized for ease of display purposes? If it's for the ledger, as long as you book dollars to the correct organization/ Account, does the ability of how the dollars rollup through an organization need to be immediate? The answer to all of these is it depends. AND the answer is that ALL things are doable. It's just a matter of time and money.

Points arising:

· I will leave it to the reader to judge who is outrageous

· Column space, my time, and readers’ attention span are limited. In a short column I cannot do justice to all that needs debunking (a lot of which does not deserve comment).

· My focus is to debunk misconceptions and fallacies which so overwhelm knowledge and reason, that I must let the little that exists of the latter take care of itself.

· There is no reference to OLAP in the original thread, but even if there were, “it depends” is nonsense. OLAP designs can be not just denormalized, but arbitrary, and I have already rebutted the erroneous notion that proper design does not apply to OLAP/warehouses.

· Confusion between database and application functions: the very reason we have databases is to separate the two. There is no need to build anything overnight for display purposes. Waste time and money, indeed.

Finally, an exchange between the two.

Brett: I wonder what Celko would have to say? Have those 2 ever met? I'd like to be in the room for that one...

Rudy: celko's comments about pascal would likely be unprintable. i don't think they like each other
example: "There is absolutely nothing that will persuade me to consider anything that has to do with Celko. 100% waste of time." (Not More on Celko, Please!). or this: "Stay away from Celko!!!!" (On Surrogate and Natural Keys).

as for my own feelings on the matter ... celko has solved countless practical real world problems while pascal has merely ranted and raved about how inadequate dabatases are, and how stupid people are who don't understand relational theory.

Actually, Celko’s comments would probably not be unprintable. He is not into that, but rather into elevating his stature via slanted self-serving descriptions of past dialogues between him, myself,and Chris Date, where he “proved us wrong”, or some such. The technique he used then, developed to perfection, was to continuously dump lots of long drivel, peppered heavily with all sorts of obscure sources and references, aimed at overwhelming his discussants, and impress an uninformed audience (who he knows won’t be able to see through it all). Each time you responded to one such dump, he produced another, never sticking to the point. Not only was responding prohibitive (the objective is to wear you down), but if you did try to track down those sources and quotes, if they existed at all, you almost always discovered that either they had nothing to do with the case, or meant something completely different than, or opposite to what Celko claimed. After several such experiences you realize you’re wasting your time publicizing Celko, and give up a lost cause, which is interpreted as a “win” by Celko. I often tell people “don’t do a Celko on me” when I detect they employ this method (for an example, see Dawn Wolthuis’ “Proof”).

To judge whether Celko’s “solutions” are the correct ones—and actually work! (see Not More on Celko, Please!)—knowledge and reason are required and, again, those are precisely what the likes of Rudy lack, because they “do not give a shit.”

Posted 7/8/05