Intro
"Improving value from reading" is a new series in this blog that I hope will be successful enough (as in value for me) to not just make it past the first post.
Some background...
One of many observations during my 2012 reflections was I didn't seem to get much out of reading books. In this series I will try to use/apply the content of what I read to hopefully change that.
The book
First out is the Swedish book Skeptikerskolan ("The School for Skeptics"). This book is divided into two parts, first an introduction to fallacies with examples when a practical part with illustrations of how to practice skepticism when discussing religion, politics, news etc. I will only focus on the first part by providing test related examples for each fallacy in the book.
For those of you familiar with skepticism, please help me correct my examples as well as my English translations of definitions and how they are used. I've tried my best but don't want to spend too much time just getting the translations correct.
Fallacies
Appeal to Authority
There's no value in certifications, if you don't believe me just listen to Michael Bolton!
Personal Attack
James Bach is a high school dropout, he's well over his head trying to challenge well established test methodologies.
False dilemma
Either we have test cases or we'll have no idea of what's been tested!
Appeal to consequences
I clicked the login button and everything crashed so there's something wrong with the login code.
The straw man
Exploratory testers just care about their own work. From their point of view no one else should know anything about the tests or testing status.
Argument from ignorance
We've never figured out why the node is crashing but it must be due to some OS bug.
Personal incredulity
I can't see how this patch would cause the performance issues we see, it must be something else.
Tu quoque
The senior testers don't care about following the test process so I can ignore it as well.
Comment, seems like the definition online for Tu quoque doesn't correspond well to the explanation in the book (but the term is used), is this a valid example?
Does not follow
We found a lot of bugs testing the user administration, there's no use to continue testing, this piece of software is just crap.
Final consequences
We need to embrace context driven testing if we ever want to reach an efficient test process.
Begging the question
Test cases makes our testing better so we need them.
Simultaneous
During traffic there is often screen flicker so they must be related.
Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
We've tried various ways to replicate the bug but failed, it's irreproducible.
Slippery Slope
They're trying to automate the smoke tests, soon we'll have to write automated scripts for every test we do.
Ad hoc explanation
- TMap can't improve any test process
- It improved my team's test process
- It can't improve any professional test process
No true Scotsman
- TMap can't improve any test process
- It improved my team's test process
- What you call test process is not really a test process
Argument to the stick
If you don't document your tests this project will fail miserably.
Appeal to Popularity
With over 200 000 certificates issued there's no doubt ISTQB is a must have for testers.
Appeal to Nature
Exploring software is just the natural way to test, it must be more efficient.
Guilt by association
Stop questioning his ideas, don't forget he was the brain behind both our previous successful releases!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Appeal to Authority
ReplyDeleteThere's no value in certifications, if you don't believe me just listen to Michael Bolton!
Appeal to Popularity
With over 200 000 certificates issued there's no doubt ISTQB is a must have for testers.
Which one we testers should follow?
Depends on what other "proofs" (and actual facts) you find and believe in .)
DeleteThe only point I'm trying to make is that neither one is a valid argument. In the case of Michael Bolton (the tester, or well it doesn't matter really in this case .) he's a well resepcted tester but that's no proof that everything he says is true, in this case we don't even know if he actually said it, just that someone refers to him saying it (same with the number in the second argument by the way).
In the second example you're expected to believe that ISTQB is the route to go since many other testers go this route. This is also not a valid argument, it might just be an easy route, a well marketed route or an outdated one (just to mention a few examples). Instead you have to question what you gain from investing time and money into getting it, what your options are, if it helps you get the kind of job YOU want etc.
My personal belief is, after for example reading the ISTQB Syllabus, reasoning myself and discussing the material and format with testers I put a lot of trust in, that it, for me, isn't helpful, probably even hurtful. So, once again for me, it isn't a route I want to go. But situation might be different for you I won't try and sell my opinion to you, instead it's better you make up one for yourself by doing similar thing as the ones I mentioned (reading the Syllabus etc.).
I hope it helped you.
A useful and interesting post on logical fallacies, thank you :).
ReplyDeleteJust to add: Sometimes I'm not trying to be logically correct, just change someone's mind. Also if I'm applying heuristic methods in my testing I don't expect to infer logical certainty (which is why I use a diverse test strategy!).