in reply to What do you know, and how do you know that you know it?
My initial reaction was "what does this have to do with Perl?" However, it suddenly occured to me that there is an obvious (to me, at least) Perl corollary:
There is more than one way to do it
From different starting points, reasonable people will reach very different conclusions on how to solve problems. This is normal and natural. The importance, ease, and cultural encouragement of testing as part of code writing is another parallel -- what do you know your code does and how do you know it? -- or at least, what do you assume you know about your code and how do you check your assumptions. (Does this suggest the Perl community is naturally inclined to avoid the self-reinforcing belief trap?) Now, if only there were a Test::More suite for life...
In all seriousness, to the point of the article, I find one of the best ways to avoid a self-reinforcing belief system is the debating team notion that one should be able to argue both sides of any argument equally well.
Code posted by xdg on PerlMonks is public domain. It has no warranties, express or implied. Posted code may not have been tested. Use at your own risk.
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
Re^2: What do you know, and how do you know that you know it?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 02, 2004 at 18:12 UTC