Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- principles:gall_s_law [2021-05-11 17:14] – old revision restored (2021-05-09 05:03) 95.216.157.239
+++ principles:gall_s_law [2021-10-20 21:27] – +++ restored +++ christian
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 However, equally true is that some systems are implemented at a certain level of complexity and perform the desired function but, then, after the system is put into use for a time, simplifications are found.  This happens frequently in businesses that add dissimilar revenue-generating processes.  Take the hypothetical example of a law firm that seeks to add a revenue stream by created an associated title company.  It is not hard to imagine that the Firm, being conditioned to take extra precautions to avoid malpractice and injury to their law licenses, would set up a fairly complex system based upon their work with other title companies.  However, once the new title company starts to function simplifications may be found as the employees of the new company become more familiar with the system and the needs of their work.  The cause is that the system was developed by individuals who were not intimately familiar with each and every parameter of the process needed.
-As Gall's statement is not true in every occurrence, it cannot be a law. Much of my critique focuses on Gall's use of the word "works" and that may be seen as simply a semantic issue.  Unfortunately, it is not just semantic; it has operative effect.  Gall's proponent might argue that the meaning is clarified by some other work of his, even in the same work where the "law" is found, and that this somehow "saves" the statement.  Unfortunately, this is incorrect.  If Gall's meaning is obfuscated by the choice of words in the "law" or if deriving their meaning relies on external sources of information, then his statement fails under the rule of statutory construction that demands that a law be unambiguous.  If external sources were required then they must be incorporated by reference and, if they are not, Gall's law drops to Gall's Theorem.  Still an admirable achievement but certainly not a law.
+As Gall's statement is not true in every occurrence, it cannot be a law. Much of my critique focuses on Gall's use of the word "works" and that may be seen as simply a semantic issue.  Unfortunately, it is not just semantic; it has operative effect and creates a dichotomy.  Gall's proponent might argue that the meaning is clarified by some other work of his, even in the same work where the "law" is found, and that this somehow "saves" the statement.  Unfortunately, this is incorrect.  If Gall's meaning is obfuscated by the choice of words in the "law" or if deriving their meaning relies on external sources of information, then his statement fails under the rule of statutory construction that demands that a law be unambiguous.  If external sources were required then they must be incorporated by reference and, if they are not, Gall's law drops to Gall's Theorem.  Still an admirable achievement but certainly not a law.
 ==== Complementary Principles ====
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 Discuss this wiki article and the principle on the corresponding [[talk:principles:Gall's Law|talk page]].