Every once in awhile a reasonably intelligent No Estimates advocate shows up in a Twitter discussion. Although the poster is filled with logical fallacies, like cherry picking personal anecdotes, inversion of economic concept (focus on value, with no consideration for the cost to produce that value), the notion that requesting or even requiring estimates is the source of management dysfunction. They often say you should be open-minded and try the concepts of No Estimates first.
They conflate open-mindedness with you should accept my suggestion, because of Your Choice of Logical Fallacy Goes Here.
This is a common example here in the Rocky Mountains of Sasquatch, an ape-like creature. A closed minded person would say sasquatch exists, no matter the lack of evidence. A Pseudo-Open Minded person would say Sasquatch exists because the Federal Government is suppressing the evidence. And even if we don't evidence today, we'll have it soon.
The real open minded person would say, Sasquatch doesn't exist because of the complete lack of evidence. If someone brings irrefutable evidence, I will reconsider my position.
The real open-minded person doesn't have to be open-minded to the hypothesis, just open-minded to the evidence.
Keep an open mind, but no so open your brains fall out.
A January 1940 speech by Walter Kotschnig given at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts.
Forms of the Logical Fallacy
Logical fallacies are errors of reasoning in making an argument. When logically fallacious arguments are used, usually based on bad reasoning to support a position (or to try to convince someone to adopt the same position), it is considered a fallacy. When an argument uses a logical fallacy it shouldn’t hold up to those using logic and reason as the source of decision making. This generally doesn’t stop people, specifically those with an agenda. The agenda can be selling books and seminars, or even seeking employment where that logical fallacy is the basis of employment or at least a free dinner at the local meeting of like-minded logical fallacy holders.
There are two forms of a logical fallacy.
- Informal (the most common) - while not violating logic rules, the argument is invalid because of the content of the argument. Informal fallacies are often characterized by the disconnect between their premises and conclusions.
- Formal - are fallacies that violate a rule of logic. They usually include nonsequitur logic, that is, the conclusion is not connected to the argument.
Deciding between formal and informal logical fallacies is the passion for logic geeks, No need to spend time separating between the two. The effect of either type of logical fallacy is the same–the arguments can be dismissed.
Here's a short list of logical fallacies applicable to the #Noestimates argument. This list is derived from Skeptical Raptor's Blog with is focused on science fallacies, currently around the fallacies that vaccines cause autism, bit other important topics as well including global warming deniers logical fallacies. I've taken the same approach for #Noestimates.
- Appeal to popular belief - also known as the Argumentum ad populum – is the logical fallacy that states that if most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true, it is evidence that the claim must be true.
- Argument from Fallacy - also known as the argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, or fallacist’s fallacy, is dismissing a proposition because one of its supporting arguments contains a logical fallacy.
- The rejection of an idea as false simply because the argument used to support the idea is itself fallacious.
- Argument from Authority - or more formally, the argument from false or misleading authority, argumentum ad vericundiam, is a logical fallacy which provides an argument from an authority, but on a topic outside of the particular authority’s expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased).
- Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument. When correctly applied, it can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgment or input from a qualified or expert source.
- The works of these authorities, almost always published and peer-reviewed, no matter how eminent or influential, is always judged by the quality of their evidence and reasoning, not by their authority alone. Thus, if someone denies evolution and has a Ph.D. in biology from a respected institution, his words are not evidence, only their high quality published works which support their claims.
- Argument from Ignorance - or argumentum ad ignorantiam, infers that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not proven to be false. Alternatively, that a proposition is false because it is not proven to be true.
- The argument that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is a form of this logical fallacy, because the absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if substantial attempts to find evidence have proven negative.
- This fallacy also asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or it is “generally accepted” (or vice versa).
- This argument presumes there are only two choices: true or false. There may be other choices, including “not enough investigation has been completed to choose between true or false.” So a non-fallacious argument may be made that a proposition is not false because insufficient testing has been done to show it false.
- Argument ad hominem - applies to any argument that centers on emotional (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal. An ad hominem argument occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
- This is the traditional No Estimates argument - you're being a troll because you're asking me pointed questions
- Bandwagon Fallacy - appeals to the growing popularity of an idea. This popularity is used as the reason for accepting it as true.
- This argument is fallacious because popularity may not arise from an actual fact, but may result from peer pressure, political expediency, or even plain mass stupidity.
- Popularity does not guarantee the truthfulness of an argument.
- This is a popular No Estimates argument when we hear of all the people attending conferences, listening to podcasts, buy books on the topic of No Estimates.
- Cherry Picking - a fallacy where only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
- This can range from cherry picking examples - I know CEOs who don't use estimates. Or even I know of firms that don't estimate their software development.
- The personal anecdote is the extreme example of cherry picking. An anecdote is a sample of one, from an unknown population
- False Dichotomy - or false dilemma, is a dichotomy (a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives) of arguments that ignores the potential for an infinite set of alternative arguments; for an infinite number of overlapping arguments; or for the potential that neither part of the dichotomy is correct.
- A false dichotomy is often employed by an arguer to force the other side into an extreme position by assuming that there are only two possible positions.
- At its core the false dichotomy, says “you are either with us or against us,” which ignores the all other possibilities, such as “we are with you on points A & B, but against you on points C, D & E.”
- The classic No estimates argument is estimates are the smell of dysfunction. You either accept there is dysfunction on software projects - which of course is ALWAYS true because they are a software project, Or you deny there is dysfunction and therefore have no understanding of software projects.
- Of course, the dysfunction is never named, and the conjecture - the fallacy - is that estimates are the root cause of this dysfunction.
- The Galileo Gambit - is a fallacy where the putative expert insists that he is an unacknowledged genius, a maverick who is shunned by mainstream science because of his unconventional ideas.
- This has become popular recently with several authors of No Estimates books and courses.
- The founders of agile were shunned in the same way I'm being shunned. Those authors turned out to be right, so I must be right as well.
- Poisoning the Well - is a logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument. Usually, the arguer attempts to present any information that could produce a biased opinion of the subject, either in support or against. The poisoning the well fallacy is related to the ad hominem argument, in that the subject is attacked or defended based on some irrelevant quality, rather than the actual evidence.
- In No Estimates, this comes about with those conjecturing that decisions can be made in the presence of uncertainty can be made without estimating, are asked directly how can that be done, turn to the person asking and start complaining they (the person being asked) are being harassed, not listened to, being belittled and the like.
- Red Herring - is a fallacy, probably named after an English philosopher who used kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to throw hounds off the scent of the rabbit, are an argument style in which an irrelevant topic is presented in an attempt to divert the argument from the original issue.
- The arguer makes the claim of “winning” the argument by directing the argument from the initial topic to another, often unrelated topic.
- It's not about estimates it's about dysfunction
- We're only exploring alternatives to estimating
- I'm not really going to tell you how to fix the dysfunction, just going to try and convince you that estimates are the SMELL of dysfunction, just like the Red Herring has a smell
- Strawman - is an argument that misrepresents a position of the other side, in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is. The arguer then refutes the arguer’s misrepresentation of the position, leading others to conclude that the real position has been refuted.
- It is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent’s arguments are more easily defeated than they are.
- The straw man argument is a fallacy, of course, because it has done nothing to actually refute the position of the other side of the argument, nor provide any evidentiary support of either side of the argument.
- I'm really not arguing that No Estimates means NO ESTIMATES
So, in the end, we are no closer to answering the question
How do you make a decision in the presence of uncertainty when spending other peoples money
Why are we no closer? Because there is no answer to that question. And the Fallacy of being open minded is itself a fallacy because those conjecturing No estimates are no open minded in the least to the fallacies of their arguments.
So if the No Estimates advocates are going to accuse me and several of my fellow travelers of being closed minded, you better get your facts right.
- No estimation does not produce a 10X improvement in project performance
- Steve McConnell did not prove estimates can't be made in his book
- There can be no assessment of Value without knowing the cost to achieve that Value
- Estimates can be made of anything knowable. You may not know how to do it, but go find someone how can.
So when the No Estimates advocates make a hypothesis that estimating is the smell of dysfunction all the way to decisions can be in the absence of estimates, form you're hypothesis and look for two things
- What is the quality and quantity of evidence that supports or refutes your hypothesis
- What is the plausibility that your hypothesis fits into the principles and practices of managerial finance, microeconomics, and generally accepted accounting and business practices of modern business?
There is no principle stated to date by the advocates of #NoEstimates that supports the conjecture that decisions can be made in the presence of uncertainty while estimating the impact on the business of those decisions.
