The sacred shared duty of each and every researcher or scientist is pursuit of absolute truth (or facts). Any researcher or scientist must be ashamed of assuming or believing oneself a researcher or scientist, if one either doesn’t know the shared sacred duty or ignore/evade the shared sacred duty (e.g. denying facts by using silly baseless excuses). The scientific and technological progress is nothing but expanding boundaries of human knowledge by discovering objective facts (or truths).
Please allow me to provide few examples: Scientific research in chemistry is discovering, studying, organizing the knowledge and cataloging properties of elements, compounds or chemicals. The botany is discovering, studying, organizing the knowledge and cataloging properties of plants. The zoology is discovering, studying, organizing the knowledge and cataloging properties of animals. The scientific progress in each of the above scientific fields is nothing but discovering new facts for expanding human knowledge.
Unfortunately most software researchers argue, it is impossible to find essential properties of physical components. If this is true, the entire scientific progress we made in each of the basic fields is wrong and nothing mankind invented and built by relying on the scientific discoveries could work. Why can’t any one make same argument for each of the basic sciences (e.g. chemistry, botany or zoology)? How could any of the basic sciences (e.g. chemistry, botany or zoology) exists, if this argument is true?
The purpose of scientific research is discovering relevant facts for expanding the human knowledge. The basic effort and purpose of engineering research is to invent useful things by rely on a “set of core or necessary facts” discovered in the scientific research. None of the useful invention we are using everyday and take it for granted could ever work, if there are errors in the “set of core or necessary facts”.
About 45 years ago software researchers blindly defined properties of components without any basis in reality or facts. Over time those unsubstantiated assumptions became axioms (assumed to be de facto Truths). No one ever either questioned their validity or even suspected possible errors in the unsubstantiated axiomatic assumptions. In spite of effort spanning four decades by millions of researchers, engineers and experts no breakthrough invention or even meaningful progress is made in CBSD, because they have been relying on myths (i.e. unsubstantiated axioms assuming to be de facto Truths). Isn’t failure expected outcome of any research, if there are errors in “essential set of facts”?
What are the “core or essential set of facts” for inventing real software components and CBD for software? Is it impossible to discover essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each every physical functional component? If it were true, I respectfully challenge to find a flaw in the essential properties discover and proposed (in our website)? Why any expert should have any problem finding a flaw in the essential properties proposed (in our website), if it is impossible to discover the essential properties?
Is it wrong if I demand any researcher or scientist to finding a flaw in my discoveries (e.g. essential properties of components and essential aspects of CBSD) proposed in our website, if he uses either baseless excuses (e.g. software is different or unique) or argue that it is impossible to discover essential properties of physical components?
As a scientist, one must ruthlessly peruse facts and truth. For example, he has no need to explain financial implications. He should not be overly concern with egos of respected scientists (as long as he meant no disrespect and his objective is only to firmly and respectfully state facts). It sounds or perceived to be arrogant and disrespectful, when any one say I am right and every one else is wrong. But when it is the case, how any one can politely or humbly but firmly request for an opportunity form respected researchers to demonstrate proof.
I am sure it would hurt egos of some researchers, but competent researchers know that it is justified (if they can’t find any flaw in the proposed inventions and discoveries). I am sure any good scientist or researcher would appreciate such humble effort to force him/her to see the facts, reason and light of truth (especially when the facts end up saving his and others from wasting their passionate effort for advancing technology by relying on erroneous facts). I have utmost respect for respected researchers and I meant no disrespect. Unfortunately stating certain kinds of facts appears or perceived to be arrogant and disrespectful, and I humbly state that I meant no disrespect.
Unfortunately few irrational skeptics try to sidetrack the debate by demanding financial implications or usefulness of the discoveries. The truth is the God in the religion of science and ruthlessly perusing the Truth is the best way to practice religion of science. No one could have named tangible financial benefits, if one demands 500 years ago what difference it would make by proving the fact (e.g. the Sun is at the center)? But now we answer that question: The mankind would still be in Dark Age, if that fact is not yet discovered. How could
and propose Gravity without Kepler’s laws? Newton
For example, now there is a debate raging about the very existence (or “nature of black holes”) after Stephen Hawking changed his mind and proposed a new theory to solve a paradox surrounding the fundamental building blocks of how the universe works. Mankind can never see a black hole and countless aspects are unknown and can’t be predicted with any certainty. All the theories are at best educated guesses based on very little information or at worst pure speculation. Why should we care about the “nature of black holes”? What tangible benefits it can have on world economy.
This is true for any basic research. What difference it makes, if dinosaurs were extinct due to collision of meteor or wiped out by a killer virus? Why governments investing billions on basic scientific research and building expensive research equipment and facilities (e.g. CERN’s Super Collider). It is impossible to provide a concrete answer, except saying, without ruthless pursuit of truth/facts mankind would still be in the dark ages. And history taught us valuable lesions that, ruthless pursuit of truth/facts is the only way for advancing science and technology. Even if truth has no apparent value at that time, erroneous facts certainly have huge costs, if researchers try to advance technology by relying on erroneous facts. For example, the software researchers wasted three decades by relying on erroneous axioms (by assuming to be facts). Exposing errors in such deeply entrenched erroneous axioms resulted in scientific revolution far greater than most of the great discoveries (Ref: Famous Book “The Structure of the Scientific Revolutions” by Dr. Kuhn).
Is the essential properties of functional physical components and CBD of physical products are as mysterious as black holes? Why software researchers even today relying on at best educated guesses (by ignoring all the known facts and observations) or at worst pure speculation made 45 years ago? If one asks 10 CBSE experts to accurately describe (e.g. to name just one essential property universally shared by) the physical components, we get 10 different accurate descriptions. Even black holes have fewer theories, and scientists readily admit that the theories are not facts, but just popular paths selected for finding the Truth. Unfortunately the CBSE experts believe their definitions are facts, so they see no need for validation or accept dissent. Only the God has more mysterious definitions than the components, as if no one alive ever seen a physical component or CBD.
The software researchers have been relying on unsubstantiated axiomatic assumptions for inventing components/CBD, by concluding the axiomatic assumptions are facts (yet no one ever even tried to provide any evidence to show they are facts). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the axiomatic assumptions are erroneous in light of known facts and observations about physical-components and CBD. I meant no disrespect, whenever I firmly state fact (for which, if I can provide an irrefutable proof, if given opportunity).
Can any one defend their baseless silly excuse (i.e. it is impossible to discover essential properties of physical components) by naming even a single physical being mankind failed to discover accurate description (i.e. essential properties), after trying harder at least for few months and knowing as much as mankind knows about physical components. Of course, mankind has been trying to discover internal structure of elementary particles (e.g. neutrons, protons or electrons) by using string-theory or structure of unversed by using big-bang-theory for years and not yet successful, because we have very little information and know almost nothing about them. No one else is foolish enough to waste effort by relying on such unproven theories (by assuming that they are facts) for making useful inventions.
Mankind never failed to find accurate description (e.g. essential properties) for any physical being that can be seen, touched and abundantly found as the components. Mankind discovered properties of countless things (e.g. electrons, hydrogen, bacteria or genes) we can’t even see or touch. For example, the basic sciences such as physics, chemistry, botany and zoology discovered millions of facts (e.g. including accurate descriptions and essential properties) and made millions of successful inventions by relying on the facts. Since all these inventions are working, it proves that the facts are sufficiently accurate (within acceptable engineering tolerance). Unfortunately software researchers stubbornly using silly excuses and refusing to even try discovering essential properties of the physical components. With all due respect, I humbly state that this is not acceptable behavior for any scientist or researcher, if he assumes that he is a scientist or researcher and believes that he is doing real research.