[obviouslygreen]

If the problem you are trying to solve involves creating a magnum opus, you are solving the wrong problem.

This is trivially incorrect. If the problem is the creation of a magnum opus, then the solution is creating a magnum opus.

Failure doesn't have anything to do with it. It's not necessary to fail at all to improve your process; that this is the approach that's often most effective has nothing to do with the approach itself, it's a reflection of our poor models of the problem space.

If we had a thorough understanding of the problems surrounding human-powered flight, we'd be able (or much closer to being able) to create theoretical solutions that could be effective.

I don't know if Mr. Macready actually stated that "the process" was the problem, but if he did, I disagree with him as well. That the process many people use is sub-optimal and you find a better one does not mean their process was the problem. It means it was one of their problems. Further, that it can be much faster to iterate on experimental results without a solid model of the problem does not mean iteration is somehow "the answer." It means it's one way of getting to a solution without an accurate fundamental understanding of the problem.

[marcus_holmes]

"This is trivially incorrect. If the problem is the creation of a magnum opus, then the solution is creating a magnum opus."

I would say you just proved the point. If the problem is the creation of a magnus opus then it is the wrong problem. Creation of a magnus opus with no further use is pointless and a waste of everyone's time, so don't solve that problem.

[general_failure]

There is no such thing as a wrong problem. It is a subjective decision

[mcphage]

> If the problem is the creation of a magnum opus, then the solution is creating a magnum opus.

The problem is rarely the creation of a magnum opus. But people usually think that their problem is the creation of a magnum opus. And generally, they are wrong.