Tuesday, November 26, 2013

The process of scientific research is broken in the computer science and it must be fixed by following simple scientific principles of basic sciences

The real scientific process for advancing any area such as semiconductor-chips or fiber-optic networks (or real-CBD for software) requires two basic steps: (1) Basic scientific research to discover facts about innate nature and essential characteristics and aspects of the basic building blocks essential for the area, and (2) Basic engineering research that must rely on the facts discovered in the step-1 to invent useful things of the area.

The scientific and engineering progress is respective fields (e.g. semiconductor-chips or fiber-optic networks) is accomplished by iterating on two steps (e.g. by experimentation, trail-and-error): (a) discovering more facts or finer aspects of already known facts; and (b) invent more useful things or innovating to make useful things better by relying on facts.

The researchers of computer science made a huge error by skipping the step-1 by defining many kinds of software-components without any basis in reality or consideration of facts, where each kind of software-components by definition (or convention) is a kind of useful software parts either (i) having certain useful properties (e.g. reusable or standardized) or (ii) conforming to a so called component model.

The above definitions (or postulations) are a huge violation of basic scientific principle/process: Could the semiconductor-chip industry exist, if scientists define characteristics of electrons and nature of how electrons behave in semiconductor materials, without any consideration to reality or facts? Could the fiber-optic networks exist, if scientists define characteristics of light and nature of how light behave in fiber-optics, without any consideration to reality or facts?

Likewise, real-software-components for real-CBSD cannot be invented by software researchers, without discovering the facts about innate nature of real-functional-components such as unique characteristics universally shared by all the physical functional-components that are essential for enabling real-CBD (e.g. must have one or more hierarchies of replaceable components) for the physical products.

Therefore any progress made based on these baseless definitions (i.e. postulation) for so called software components would have near zero value in the context of real-CBSD. Please don't miss-interpret my statement. Of course, they have value in the context of software-parts, because it is certainly possible to invent and improve many kinds of useful software parts. These other kinds of software-parts and improvements are giving the researchers a false sense confidence that research is in the right path. But reality is other kinds of software-parts are not only irrelevant in the context of real-CBSD but also successfully preventing the discovery of real-software-component for real-CBSD (i.e. CBD for software products) by burring the error deeply under ever growing many layers upon layers of interdependent web of concepts of so called component/CBSE evolved for decades by relying on the error.

The existing software engineering paradigm (built by relying on the above huge error) has been spread very widely (even though software is widely acknowledged to be in crisis/complex, computing is far more useful to endure the complexity) and the large ecosystem of concepts evolved by relying on the error is deeply entrenched into conventional wisdom. Today most experts even arrogantly or foolishly refuse to accept the basic scientific principles and processes.

Often the experts defend the error by relying on the concepts of top-layers of the paradigm, without even realizing that they have been using invalid circular logic. It is no different that the astronomers defending the Geocentric-model by using the epicycles and retrograde-motion of planets, where the epicycles and retrograde-motion were well documented for centuries (e.g. can re-confirm at any time by observing the planets) and deeply entrenched in to collective wisdom. This resulted in a stalemate and the most famous intellectual scientific confrontation in history:

In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

This kind of stalemate can never occur, if no basic scientific principle is violated and no scientific process is broken. Therefore this kind of stalemate can be overcome by finding any violations of basic scientific principles or broken scientific process. Those philosophers had million references to discredit the Truth (i.e. Heliocentric-model) in then deeply entrenched paradigm, which had been evolving for centuries by relying on a huge error. The philosophers had no problem showing the retrograde motion of planets to any one who wants proof (by standing on the Earth). The existing software paradigm that has been evolving since 1970 has literally has thousands of references either to defend the huge error or to discredit the facts and reality (each and every one know about the CBD of physical products and the physical functional components).

I am respectfully challenging any software expert to find a flaw in this simple two-part proof: Part-1: No real scientist can discredit the fact that, it is a huge error to skip the step-1 for technological progress. Part-2: It is impossible to find any evidence that any researcher ever tried to discover the nature of real-components essential for achieving real-CBD, which further requires discovering accurate description for real-CBD by relying on facts (e.g. CBD-structure) and valid observations (e.g. CBD-process).

It is impossible to find any evidence that inventing or defining (instead of discovering) the nature of any physical being (e.g. electrons, light or components) or phenomenon (e.g. behavior in IC-chips, fiber-optic equipment or for achieving real-CBD respectively) ever resulted in any tangible benefits, except in science fiction books and movies, or inspiring mankind’s creative imagination that might result in real discoveries. Of course, some discoveries are made either by accident or a lucky guess.

I freely and deliberately offered to demonstrate dozens of hierarchies of replaceable components to many researchers. Sadly respected researchers even in the 21st century behaved not much differently than the philosophers in the dark ages. For example, after few failed attempts I wrote this open letter to researchers of highly respected research organizations.

How could any one believe he is real researchers or scientists without even knowing the basic scientific principles and basic scientific process? If software scientists refuse to accept basic scientific principles that are applicable to the software engineering, which is amount to murdering the real-CBSD and death of real-scientific progress (since no real scientific progress is possible not only without exposing the huge error but also not following basic scientific principles and processes).

Any scientist must agree that even 5 times the collective might and wealth of mankind can’t change the laws of nature, so it is foolish to define or try to invent the nature of any kind of physical-beings or physical-phenomenon. The computer science veered off course into the realm of pseudo-science (or science fiction) when software researchers collectively accepted or agreed to define or try to invent nature of physical-beings (e.g. physical functional-components) or phenomenon (CBD for physical products).

The computer science can be and must be a real science, because it can be and must be progressed on real facts (not myths or baseless postulations). Unfortunately today the computer science is not real science because it comprises many concepts relying on myths or baseless postulations. It is impossible to transform this pseudo-science into real science without exposing the errors and myths; without fixing the broken scientific process by following basic scientific principles.

If one searchers using Google for phrases such as “Is software engineering a real engineering” or “Is computer science a real science”, one can find many articles persuasively arguing that software engineering or computer science are flawed discipline. The basic science was flawed discipline 500 years ago, because it evolved for 1000 years based on unsubstantiated erroneous axiomatic assumption “The Earth is static at center”. Likewise, computer science and software engineering are flawed disciplines, because each has been evolving since 1960s based on the unsubstantiated erroneous axiomatic assumptions (no one ever try to validate or even aware of its very existence).

The CBD is a physical phenomenon like phenomenon of flying that must obey laws of nature, and flopping fake wings (i.e. using fake components) can never achieve flight (i.e. real CBD). Our beloved computer science can never come out of realm of science fiction until the nature of beings and phenomenon is discovered (instead of relying on baseless definitions that clearly contradict reality and facts). For example, the phenomenon of controlled powered flight can’t be achieved without relying on scientific discoveries and technological facts. Likewise, it is impossible to achieve real-CBD without discovering the essential scientific and technological facts. The technological progress since early flight of Wright Brothers to acrobatic twists and turns of modern jet-fighters is possible only by relying on scientific discoveries and technological facts. By observing the progress of aviation or any modern technology one can understand that defining nature instead of discovering nature resulted in our beloved computer science ending up as a science fiction.

1 comment:

  1. The philosophers 400 year ago refuse to believe the fact that the Earth is moving, since geocentric-paradigm had been evolving for centuries due to the effort of them and many generations before them, who lived all their lives on the Earth, found no reason to doubt root postulation that the Earth is static. Their hard work and brute force to understand the nature over the centuries without realizing the error resulted in deeply entrenched collective wisdom and a complex paradigm comprising accumulation of a huge collection of observations and concepts, which they could use to justify the geocentric-model. For example, the gravity was not discovered and they can show any one epicycles and retrograde motion of the planets (while the Sun and Moon were in circular orbits).

    Likewise, many software experts refusing to accept simple facts, just because many generations of software researchers have been evolving a complex software engineering paradigm by relying on the unsubstantiated postulations (which are in clear contradiction to known facts about CBD of physical products and reality of physical functional components). Most software experts readily admit that the definitions are clear contradiction to the facts and reality (i.e. with respect to physical components and CBD of physical products). The brute force of researchers to advance the software engineering since 1970 without validating the postulations resulted in a complex paradigm and deeply entrenched collective wisdom.

    The experts use baseless excuses that software is different or unique to justify the contradictions, and refuse to provide any valid reason to explain why and what manner design of software products different. It is impossible to find any valid reason why it is not possible to invent real-software-components equivalent to the physical functional-components (by having the unique essential properties universally shared by the physical functional-components) for achieving the real-CBSD (e.g. CBD-structure for securing benefits being enjoyed by the designers of physical CBD-products) in light of the 3-CBD-facts at: http://real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD-facts-rules.html