>Now, all this is well and good, but as is pointed out so often and to our continuing embarrassment, we can't even agree on the definition of test. Just about every consultant and practitioner has their own. The only way out of this is to adopt a context-, process-, technology-neutral (and other things-neutral) definition.
This isn't the only way out. It's not even a way out. As long as people are involved, there will be contexts and technologies and other things, and they won't be neutral.
You might like to check out
the work of John Wilkins and the idea of a universal language. The effort began in 1668, and we still appear to be stuck. Wittgenstein knew why.
"Wittgenstein tried to show philosophers the way out of the fly bottle of philosophy by getting them to pay closer attention to the meanings of words. Just try to define a simple word like 'game'. Wittgenstein pointed out that if you say a game has to involve luck or have a winner or be fun, you will always be able to find an example of a game that doesn't fit your definitions. When philosophers give words overly precise or restrictive definitions, when they ignore the complexity and the irredeemable vagueness of language, they often fall into confusion."
-John Mighton, The End of Ignorance
---Michael B.
Paul says: Since I wrote that statement, it's clear that it needs a little more clarification. And the thinking I'm using applies to Axioms as much as definitions.
The motive for seeking some common, agreed definitions is to enable some clearer communication and common focus. Why are we having this (and other) conversations? We must have something in common - since we both use the word test in almost every utterance, that would be a good starting definition. I understand there will be peripheral ideas that don't fit - that's why we need to define the scope of the definition.
So, I agree absolutely about a definition being prone to exceptions. So all shared definitions need some qualifying scope to be complete. Now we could spend our lives trying to define to the nth degree the scope in which a proposed definition applies. But unfortunately none of us have the time. Sure, I guess we aren't talking about pregnancy tests, or DNA tests, or olympic trials or memory tests or ... whatever. These could all be called testing - but I don't think that's what we're talking about, is it? Do I really need to identify all the exceptions to use that word with confidence?
If I use the American Heritage definition of test, and I then use the qualification that we're talking about testing 'systems' - then we get into really deep water - count the definitions of system on dictionary.com. This discussion could take some time.
But we can still have an intelligent conversation mutually trusting each other to know when we are drifting into a periphery where our common understanding might disintegrate. I think we're smart enough to know when we're in that risky area.
Call me a school (or idealist or fool) if you must, but I think deep down there are a set of common beliefs and fuzzy (until agreed) definitions held dear by testers in our field (define field please :-) ). Then there are values that we share and some values we don't. I think it's consistent to vary or further qualify our definitions once we drift into values or schools, and I appreciate it might be expedient to have different definitions for different contexts. But underpinning all this, I still think it helpful to have a common notion of what we means by some key things. Then we can move away from the angels on a pin arguments (or whatever) and talk about what we really need to talk about.
So I'm happy for others to invent their definitions. But if, next time we talk, I ask you to precisely qualify your definition of test (and identify all exceptions) - I suspect you'd be a tad frustrated. This is one reason why I think it's sensible to use a definition of test not created by a testing consultant. We both can take it at face value and trust each other to know what we're both talking about - because a modicum of English comprehension is all that's required to make some progress.
Why only one?
>Now, all this is well and good, but as is pointed out so often and to our continuing embarrassment, we can't even agree on the definition of test. Just about every consultant and practitioner has their own. The only way out of this is to adopt a context-, process-, technology-neutral (and other things-neutral) definition.
This isn't the only way out. It's not even a way out. As long as people are involved, there will be contexts and technologies and other things, and they won't be neutral.
You might like to check out
the work of John Wilkins and the idea of a universal language. The effort began in 1668, and we still appear to be stuck. Wittgenstein knew why.
"Wittgenstein tried to show philosophers the way out of the fly bottle of philosophy by getting them to pay closer attention to the meanings of words. Just try to define a simple word like 'game'. Wittgenstein pointed out that if you say a game has to involve luck or have a winner or be fun, you will always be able to find an example of a game that doesn't fit your definitions. When philosophers give words overly precise or restrictive definitions, when they ignore the complexity and the irredeemable vagueness of language, they often fall into confusion."
-John Mighton, The End of Ignorance
---Michael B.
The motive for seeking some common, agreed definitions is to enable some clearer communication and common focus. Why are we having this (and other) conversations? We must have something in common - since we both use the word test in almost every utterance, that would be a good starting definition. I understand there will be peripheral ideas that don't fit - that's why we need to define the scope of the definition.
So, I agree absolutely about a definition being prone to exceptions. So all shared definitions need some qualifying scope to be complete. Now we could spend our lives trying to define to the nth degree the scope in which a proposed definition applies. But unfortunately none of us have the time. Sure, I guess we aren't talking about pregnancy tests, or DNA tests, or olympic trials or memory tests or ... whatever. These could all be called testing - but I don't think that's what we're talking about, is it? Do I really need to identify all the exceptions to use that word with confidence?
If I use the American Heritage definition of test, and I then use the qualification that we're talking about testing 'systems' - then we get into really deep water - count the definitions of system on dictionary.com. This discussion could take some time.
But we can still have an intelligent conversation mutually trusting each other to know when we are drifting into a periphery where our common understanding might disintegrate. I think we're smart enough to know when we're in that risky area.
Call me a school (or idealist or fool) if you must, but I think deep down there are a set of common beliefs and fuzzy (until agreed) definitions held dear by testers in our field (define field please :-) ). Then there are values that we share and some values we don't. I think it's consistent to vary or further qualify our definitions once we drift into values or schools, and I appreciate it might be expedient to have different definitions for different contexts. But underpinning all this, I still think it helpful to have a common notion of what we means by some key things. Then we can move away from the angels on a pin arguments (or whatever) and talk about what we really need to talk about.
So I'm happy for others to invent their definitions. But if, next time we talk, I ask you to precisely qualify your definition of test (and identify all exceptions) - I suspect you'd be a tad frustrated. This is one reason why I think it's sensible to use a definition of test not created by a testing consultant. We both can take it at face value and trust each other to know what we're both talking about - because a modicum of English comprehension is all that's required to make some progress.