III. The Scope of Naur’s Pessimism
Having established what Naur actually argues, we can now observe that his pessimism has a specific scope.
What Naur Critiques
The documentation Naur critiques consists of:
- Program texts
- Annotated code
- Specifications
- Design documents
- User documentation
His Case 1 is illustrative: Group B received “full documentation, including annotated program texts and much additional written design discussion” from Group A, yet repeatedly proposed modifications that “made no use of the facilities that were not only inherent in the structure of the existing compiler but were discussed at length in its documentation.”
The documentation described the facilities. Group B read the documentation. Yet they lacked the theory—the understanding of when and why to apply those facilities.
What Naur Does Not Claim
Notice what Naur does not claim: he does not claim that all written communication fails to transmit theory.
Indeed, his own paper successfully transmits his theory to readers. Ryle’s The Concept of Mind transmitted his epistemology. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions transmitted paradigm theory. Polanyi’s writings transmitted the concept of tacit knowledge itself.
A Crucial Distinction
This suggests a distinction:
| Documentation Type | Primary Content | Theory Transmission |
|---|---|---|
| Technical/Artifact-focused | WHAT exists, HOW it works | Poor—assumes shared theory |
| Theory-focused | WHY decisions were made, WHEN patterns apply | Better—aims to build theory |
Technical documentation fails at theory transmission not because documentation is inherently limited but because it presupposes the theory it should transmit. It serves as a reminder for those who already possess the theory, not as education for those who don’t.