This assumes that a ‘tester’ (and a ‘pilot’) can be non-human, and in both cases you still need someone with a brain involved.
I doubt whether you can be alive and non-exploratory at the same time, what do you think?

[James' Reply: I think of testing as a sapient activity, and therefore human, by definition. Checking an be done by machines, however.]

Most of the testers I’ve met who live to be as old as I am are fairly crusty. I don’t blame ‘em, I think the field can be full of people who don’t know their assumptions from a hole in the ground. My particular fun in life is giving people tools to make their jobs easier. The irony is that they don’t, though, because what happens when your productivity doubles? a) They give you a medal. b) They give you a raise. c) They give you more work to do. Pick ONE. Still, I don’t live to test.

I am not an exploratory tester, or a scripted tester. I am a 64 year old kid… However, don’t tell my potential employers that. I ‘name-dropped’ ‘exploratory testing’ and ‘James Bach’ at one of my interviews a couple weeks ago… the interviewers got fidgety and I haven’t heard back from ‘em. Probably happily.

[James' Reply: I'm a rabble-rouser. I talk to the rabble and rouse them up. That can be scary.]

Still, if I had to do a scripted test pattern all day I’d retire and go sailing instead. Maybe buy myself a place in the San Juans.

Now, regarding ‘creationism’ vs. ‘Darwinism’ – I agree to some extent with James’ argument – where I diverge is in assuming that ‘Scientists are necessarily exploratory’. The institutions of science can be just as hidebound and scripted as the institutions of religion. And the spiritual practice of religion (not as an institution) can be just as exploratory as the curiosity-driven practice of science (not as an institution) can.

[James' Reply: I can't stop people from calling themselves scientists. But, to me and my heroes, the only people worthy of that label are exploratory thinkers. Science is a sapient activity.]

I don’t think anyone calls me crusty. Have a nice trip to Sweden, James. We’ll miss you this year in Portland.

Another superb explanation for Exploratory Stuff. Its so easy for us to understand from your arcticle when we have to dig inside and tell everyone that what is exact exploratory testing. People ask what the difference when we do something from the usual . Everything comes with experience and that applies for exploratory testing too. A good tester knows what to test and up to which extent. Thanks for your wondeful post.

Rajasankar

I think that’s the view that people who are non-creationist seem to have. I’m not in either camp on this one and have spent some time looking at the views of both sides. It would be possible to consider an option where you have a creator who “creates” evolution and other such mechanisms for life to evolve.

[James' Reply: Considering it makes you a philosopher. Committing to that belief makes you scripted by it from that point onward.]

>A non-exploratory truck driver is known as… “lost.”

Wouldn’t a non-exploratory truck drive be on route given that he’d be following the script of his map/GPS system?

[James' Reply: If following the script is ALL he does then it's just a matter of time before he ends up in a river.]

>There is no such thing as an “exploratory tester” except inasmuch as a good tester obviously can and will do exploration as a basic part of his work.

I concur.

For a brilliant and scholarly discussion about the convergence of scientific and Biblical traditions, see Gerald Schroeder’s “Genesis and the Big Bang”, and “The Science of God”. (http://geraldschroeder.com)

And I agree that the exploratory nature of most people’s lives is the kind of thing many people don’t want to talk about, and if you tried, their head might explode. (Not literally. Metaphorically. C’mon now.)

But I find the head-exploding (metaphorically) conversations are often the most interesting.

Yes, the pattern is as follows: An exploratory PERSON has their name in upper case; a non-exploratory has their name is in low case.

[James' Reply: Thank you for playing. That is not the pattern I had in mind. Perhaps you could keep trying.]

Also the statement ‘There is no such thing as an “exploratory tester”’ is incorrect. An “exploratory tester” is a tester that thinks….

[James' Reply: A tester who doesn't think is not a tester. So, "exploratory" in that context is just redundant.]

[James' Reply: I don't agree that any of that is an example of non-exploratory writers. Less exploratory, sure. But still exploratory. Perhaps you could construct some exotic example of something involving "writing" that is mostly "scripted", but it would be pretty weird.]

Both of those might be considered acceptable for many people — the English teacher gets essentially guaranteed employment through the union and a job for life, while the romance novelist makes people happy and makes a fair amount of money.

[James' Reply: They may be acceptable to many people, but they are exploring. Especially the romance writers!]

Yet for some reason, I would say that isn’t the kind of gig /I’m/ looking for. I suspect that holds true for James, and many of the people who are attracted to context-driven testing, as well.

[James' Reply: I'm not simply saying that I don't like non-exploratory work. I'm making a much stronger statement than that. I'm tired of people looking at exploratory work and not seeing it. Indeed, the exploratory nature of most of our lives is illegible to most people, but we need to be better than most people.]

The first one (At least to expose the idea to me) was Bolton’s “Testing Vs Checking” post.
http://www.developsense.com/blog/2009/08/testing-vs-checking/

[James' Reply: I agree, Issi. We made a big point twenty years ago about ET because the testing world was so repressed. It's not so repressed today-- at least in some places-- and in those places talking about ET is mostly redundant. We just test.]

If your company’s idea of a tester is someone who blindly follows a script without continually thinking, refining, and adapting, then you need to decide if that’s a role you really want.

[James' Reply: It's not the word, it's the fact that some of us use the word to drive change. If we used any word to buck a bad trend, people who like the bad trend would decide they don't like that word.]

This leads to a question that has a need for an answer: Why do we need to use the word exploratory and why do folk get hung up on it? (Other than to distinguish the active – on-your-toes thinking – testing from pre-defined, non-active testing.)

[James' Reply: But that IS why I use the word exploratory. I'm trying to talk about exploring-- thinking while doing.]

As you implied: If you’re not thinking about your testing, refining and adapting it as needed, then you’re not really doing good testing. (That’s my interpretation/take anyway.)

[James' Reply: Correct. What some people want us to do is give them credit for being good testers even though they insist on closing their minds during their testing. Let's not do that.]

So the other question I’d then float (to someone who doesn’t like the word ‘exploratory’): If you agree that thinking about your testing and adapting the test approach (including test content) as needed is a good thing, then what phrase would you use for this, as opposed to not thinking about (or adapting) your testing?

If there are people out there not prepared to actively think about and adapt your testing, please raise your hand or identify yourselves now.

[James' Reply: Typically, such people would claim that they are always thinking, and the distinction is unnecessary. In which case, I would present to them an example of a script and ask them to tell me how they would follow it. I would demonstrate that different people may follow it substantially differently, even though all are claiming to be "thinking", and thus that thinking is not some minor assumption that we make, but a huge source of variation. It's the crux of the testing. Therefore, we must understand this variation, look closely at it, and learn to do it well. We must not leave it as a dangling variable.]

This reminds me of a post I’ve had in draft for a while that I need to dust off. Thanks!

Very good point. It reveals the truth where we are at the moment as a Testing Society. There is so many work places where “tester” is a synonym for “human script executor”. Hopefully it is going to change.

Alek