Is Exegesis of Deming's Thought Not Doomed to Wander off the Target

[Frederick E Roberts <fritzr@hal-pc.org>]

7 June 2000

A slew of your comments seem only commentaries on commentaries.  Is that
what Deming is about?  Is Deming's thought so arcane and its meaning so
taxing to divine that you must undergo these exercises?  If Deming's
insights were that challenging, how did he ever convey them to the
Japanese and others?

At the church I attend is a very fine library, but all its books are
religious.  Most of these are commentary on commentary on the two
testaments.  After a while these books become like some kind of 10th or
11th derivative.  Determining what Bishop So-and-so said about Saint X,
who interpreted Saint Y who skillfully fleshed out the meanings of a
certain, supposedly original utterance is much effort for little
result.  And the argument is able to carry only through a highly
specific and long string of assumptions.

I am no engineer, but I am aware that nature is believed to be
economical, as when a roof fails, the fracture line is direct.  Can we
not assume that if Deming's thoughts represent empirical truths that
their understanding and interpretation should be direct, mostly
common-sensical on their face, and very understandable.  (I leave room
for counterintuitive examples, like the world being round, the world
orbiting the sun, and that the odds for two in a group of 30 having the
same birthday are actually very high.)

Can't we just get on down the road?

Max Roberts
=====================================================================