….
There’s something of a difference between claims about facts or techniques and claims about fundamentals - about what Lakatos (in the link) calls the “hard core” of a research programme. The difference is that a research programme (like, in my case, the idea that Agile is context-driving software development rather than context-driven) is considered to be true/verifiable/discussable/refutable in the limit. That is, you only come to understand those issues by working through the programme, not by discussing it in isolation. So the pragmatic response is, as Rorty described his approach to philosophical discussions of “what is Truth” or “what is the Good”, to want to change the subject.
That may make me appear schizophrenic, inconsistent, or evasive. Oh well.
