Yep. IOW the catechism can be used to discriminate between “fundamental” science, so-called, and applied engineering projects.
There’s a (subtle, perhaps) difference between advocating catechisms or checklists normatively (“this is a useful standard to compare yourself to”) and prescriptively (“do it this way or do it elsehwere”). To put yet another domain on the table, inability to draw the distinction plagues the project management professional community. “Methodologies” or “processes” are too often, and inappropriately, seen as edicts rather than sources of good ideas.
How about applying the catechism to LessWrong as a product development project? ;)
Yep. IOW the catechism can be used to discriminate between “fundamental” science, so-called, and applied engineering projects.
There’s a (subtle, perhaps) difference between advocating catechisms or checklists normatively (“this is a useful standard to compare yourself to”) and prescriptively (“do it this way or do it elsehwere”). To put yet another domain on the table, inability to draw the distinction plagues the project management professional community. “Methodologies” or “processes” are too often, and inappropriately, seen as edicts rather than sources of good ideas.
How about applying the catechism to LessWrong as a product development project? ;)