The problem is that the majority of people will think it is science. It is written in a book, so it has to be true.
Would someone care to define this proper science?
Usually to call something "not science" is to say it is not based on 1) testable, falsifiable hypothesis, 2) accurate data, or 3) an inability to replicate/verify
Well I'm going to compound it by adding my observations :)
I've got to say, in my own experience, I like anecdotes that are war-stories best. A critical self-analysis often is full of insights for others... The most gripping, amusing and insightful talks I've seen have often been "here's how a large project detonated on us".
Unfortunately, in my experience (I end up at a lot of SOA, Cloud, Web/2.0 type events) these are quite rare for a variety of reasons . You tend to get more of the hypothesis/external critique - which by and large I find a lot less valuable.
Anyway, that's my anecdote on anecdotes :)
Irony, defined. :-) I kid.
I think Joel's problem here is that he missed the point where any of these guys claimed to be doing anything more than making a bunch of observations. Galdwell certainly isn't science, but I don't think he proclaims to be either.
I haven't read his newest book, but certainly his thesis is at odds with the idea (the one we truly want to love) that the only thing separating the haves from have nots is desire and work ethic. We're all over saying this is common sense, but then we find it outrageous that this could have an affect on any one particular outcome.
Gladwell's ultimate theory I suppose is that his observations should make us question how our society functions overall (again, haven't read the book yet). I guess that forces us to look at things in a way we often don't enjoy.