Monday, February 10, 2014

Scientific research for disruptive discoveries need ruthless pursuit of Truth/Facts, even if it appears or perceived to be arrogant or disrespectful.


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 Newton discover and propose Gravity without Kepler’s laws?

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.


3 comments:


  1. Ask any software researcher to name just one essential property universally shared by the physical functional components. You may get dozens of answers and likely none of them are correct. For example, if one says “reuse” is essential property - it is wrong, because I can show thousands of components that are not reusable. For example, if one says “standardized” is essential property - it is wrong, because components exist for centuries and mankind started to standardize component only after the invention of interchangeable components 200 years ago. Also I can show thousands of components that are not standardized.

    Mankind has no problem naming essential properties of millions of physical beings (e.g. elements, molecules, plans, animals or bacteria etc.). What is the essential property of Hydrogen? Ans: An atom can be Hydrogen atom if and only if it has just one proton at its nucleolus. What is the essential property of Gold? Ans: An atom can be Gold atom if and only if it has 79 protons at its nucleolus. What is the essential property of Oxygen? Ans: An atom can be Oxygen atom if and only if it has 8 protons at its nucleolus. What is the essential property of Water? Ans: It is made of molecules, where each molecule contains one oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms.

    I am absolutely sure no one can dispute these and millions of such facts about millions of physical being. Although I might not know all the facts (name an essential properties of bacteria or trees), I am sure scientists of respective fields can provide an irrefutable answer. I am also sure, discovering such facts are many times more complex than discovering essential properties of physical functional components. Only problem is no software researcher ever tried to discover essential properties of physical functional components.

    I wanted to invent real-software-components that are equivalent to the physical functional components (by sharing essential properties uniquely and universally shared each and every physical functional components) for achieving real-CBSD (which shares essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by the design of any CBD-product in the world). I need to discover the essential properties of physical functional components for achieving my above goal. I discovered that essential properties of physical functional components are (i) replaceable and (ii) self-contained.

    I successfully achieved my goal (i.e. achieving the real-CBSD for software products) by inventing real-software-components having the two essential properties. Therefore I only relied on the fact that ideal physical functional-components must be (i) replaceable and (ii) self-contained. I can’t say that these are the only essential properties for ideal physical functional-components, but I can say that these are more than sufficient facts for my successful invention.

    Please remember, we don’t need to know all the facts for making a successful invention, but we need to know sufficient facts essential for making any successful invention. For example, I know one of the essential properties of Hydrogen is that it is highly inflammable. I can sell cheap hydrogen fuel (for making lot of money), if can successfully invent a method to make abundant Hydrogen cheaply and store compressed hydrogen in cylinders.

    The process for engineering research for inventing useful things requires setting goals, and achieving those goals by relying only on error free facts. The engineering research for inventing useful things shall end up in failure, if all the necessary facts are not known or if there are errors in the facts. Hence occasionally engineering researchers are forced to discover new facts (that are essential but not know before). The software engineering research not succeeded during the past few decades because there are errors in the basic facts. The software engineering research could never succeed until the errors are exposed.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Mankind is making thousands of new successful technological inventions each year. Each of the useful inventions must have relied up on hundreds to several thousands of essential set of facts (e.g. essential properties of physical beings or essential aspects of physical phenomenon). A useful invention is successful, if it achieves useful goals or serves a useful purpose. It is impossible to make any successful technological invention, if there are errors in the essential set of facts, so we can be sure that there are no errors in each of the essential facts. That is, no successful technological invention in 21st century is possible without relying on countless facts (that are free from errors).

    Based on the technological progress made so far by the mankind (e.g. all the engineering inventions and innovations exist today), we can be sure that mankind discovered and successfully used many millions of facts (that are free from errors). Why discovering one or more essential properties of ideal physical functional components are any different from discovering one or more essential properties of any other physical beings? I am not looking for philosophical aspects, but scientific and engineering facts (which can be verified and ascertained without any room for doubt or debate). One must be able to rely on the facts for making useful inventions.

    For example, invention of each of the products (e.g. car, computer, speakers, ceiling-fan, printer or cell-phone) requires relying on thousands of facts (that are error free). Furthermore countless innovations for evolution (e.g. successful improvements) of each of the products require relying on thousands of facts (that are error free). We don’t appreciate them, because we feel that they are trivial. We must remember that huge effort was invested in discovering those facts, but now we are taking them for granted. We feel that those facts are trivial, because they were discovered hundreds of years ago and we know them since elementary school.

    But the fact is, many of those so called trivial discoveries (we know from elementary school and taken for granted) are 10 to 100 times more complex than discovering essential properties of ideal physical functional-components. Today many experts insisting that it is impossible to discover essential properties of ideal physical functional-components. If that is true, they should not have problem finding a flaw, if any claimed to discover essential properties of ideal physical functional-components. No useful invention can be possible by relying on such newly discovered facts, if there are errors in the facts (i.e. essential properties of ideal physical functional-components).

    Let me repeat this: many of the so called trivial discoveries (we know from elementary school and taken for granted) are 10 to 100 times more complex than discovering essential properties of ideal physical functional-components. For example, E=MC*C must be at least 1000 times more complex that discovering an essential property of the ideal physical functional components. Likewise, discovery of electrons, electricity, protons, atoms or bacteria must be at least 10 to 100 times more complex than discovering an essential property of the ideal physical functional components.

    What is the use of discovering the essential properties of the ideal physical functional components? Ans: These simple discoveries not only expose the errors that sidetracked technological progress in software engineering (which must have already cost trillion to the world economy during past 3 decades) but also help invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBD for software. The real-CBD for software not only could increase manual productivity, quality by many folds but also allow mankind to build many times more complex software than practical today (e.g. for addressing more complex problems or for making more complex scientific and technological discoveries).

    ReplyDelete

  3. Just because we know a fact (e.g. electrons, electricity, protons, atoms or bacteria) since the elementary school can’t make it simple or trivial fact. Any invention today is using hundreds of facts each of which is at least 10 times more complex than our facts (i.e. the essential properties of ideal physical functional components). Our inventions are relying on very simple facts (which we discovered). Just because mankind not yet discovered can’t make our facts complex.

    Today software researchers think essential properties are reusable or standardized, which they concluded are trivial facts, since they were taught these so called facts in the class rooms (since computer science course 101), books and everyday work. No one else questioned the validity of these facts. Hence the software experts accepted them as facts, no differently than we accepted millions of facts (e.g. about electrons, atoms, molecules, bacteria or viruses). None of us seen them or verified the millions of facts (we take it for granted or concluded to be trivial). Since vast numbers of products (that are successfully invented by relying on the facts and are constantly being improved successfully) are working perfectly, this is an irrefutable proof that vast numbers of facts are true.

    The fact is: no software researcher can answer simple question: Please name any essential property uniquely and universally shared by each and every physical functional-component in the world. This proves that, there could be fatal errors in other facts mankind concluded as trivial facts and taken for granted. Our discoveries are wakeup call that we must re-validate basic facts, whenever a scientific paradigm ends up in a paradox having many contradictions (that are justified by using silly excuses that software is unique or different).

    Just because software researchers invented useful reusable-parts successfully, we can’t conclude that essential property of components is reuse (or reusable parts are components). Likewise, just because software researchers invented useful standardized-parts successfully, we can’t conclude that essential property of components is standardization (or standardized parts are components). Please keep in mind that, each of the physical functional-components are built by using many reusable and/or standardized ingredient parts, such as, cement, steel, alloys, silicon, metals or plastic etc.

    Although reusable and/or standardized parts are extremely useful, it is an obvious fact that such physical parts are not components. Just because, software engineers made few useful inventions successfully by relying on an erroneous fact (reuse is an essential property of components), this successful invention cannot be used to prove that the erroneous fact (reuse is an essential property of components) is accurate. The truth is that they only invented a kind of reusable-parts and erroneously calling them components, but it is not necessary that the reusable-parts are components.

    I don’t know why I am going into this kind of deep philosophical thoughts. I am a simple engineer, and not even a bad philosopher. Unfortunately, in India, I can’t find any one with whom I can share these thoughts. I love to have someone with whom I can exchange my thoughts to flush-out mistakes in my informal thoughts. I decided to put these thoughts as comments, so that this one day reminds me (and others who are interested) my struggles and thought process.

    My whole struggle boils down to force the research community to answer simple question: What are the essential properties of physical functional components. Please keep in mind, each essential property of any kind of physical beings is nothing but a property universally shared by each and every physical being of that kind. An accurate description for the kind of physical beings can be a set of essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every physical being.

    ReplyDelete