On the upside, due to the $8M contract, lots of people were able to work and earn a living. The story also mentions how the team had a great time, and probably lots of useful connections between people were made, and tacit knowledge exchanged.
This sort of reasoning could also justify the TSA.
Re:A Short Story for Engineers
by daurnimator on Monday December 30, 2013 @06:21PM
(#6987792)
Your fallacy is: "Glazier's fallacy". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
A little bit of self-doubt is expected from civilised people.
You're wrong in calling my thinking fallacious, because my point was merely to emphasise how reductionistic approaches never give a complete picture, which is why people from a STEM background often benefit from further training in psychology and social sciences. However, Theodores' reply ('A few things:...') does a better job than mine.
Nevertheless, Glazier's fallacy is tangential, so thank you for posting.
> On the upside, due to the $8M contract, lots of people were able to work and earn a living.
Yes but you have to also consider the opportunity cost of that $8M. Were the incidental benefits gained worth the cost?
On the upside, due to the $8M contract, lots of people were able to work and earn a living. The story also mentions how the team had a great time, and probably lots of useful connections between people were made, and tacit knowledge exchanged. Neither of those is traditionally accounted for by the engineering mindset.