Software researchers practising bad science by relying on untested/unproven flawed concepts/definitions

It must be shocking for any real scientist (e.g. in physics or biology), if he learns that he has been wasting many years of his research effort by relying on untested and unproven concepts, definitions or axioms (by assuming that the axioms are self-evident truths). He is an unfit scientist or researcher, if he says that it is OK to rely on untested and unproven concepts and definitions (made up by relying on wishful thinking or fantasy, without any consideration to reality or facts).

Science is unforgiving and immutable. If a two-year old innocent kid accidentally touches a high-voltage wire, it won’t forgive him for considering his innocence or age. Science is like that. It won’t be forgiving, even for innocent mistakes: No real scientist knowingly can rely on untested and unproven definitions or concepts – This basic scientific rule/fact is not a fact/rule that can be disputed. Also please kindly remember, a small mistake magnifies over time. For example, 1mm error in a rifle leads its bullet to miss its target at 1KM distance by a meter (3.3ft), may be hitting an innocent hostage, instead of terrorist.

Even small error in seed axioms results in deviation away from right path and would magnify over 50 years of intense software research by relying on the error. One encounters retrograde motions and epicycles that can’t be made sense, so researchers end up making up concepts and definitions to make sense of nonsense. Harder they try the further they move away from the Truth and Reality. The further and further they move from the truth, the harder and harder it is to recognize either the Reality or the error committed decades ago.

Any such error results in paradoxical paradigm (filled with concepts and definitions invented to make sense of things such as retrograde motions, which can’t be make sense) and this altered and flawed reality perceived to be real by everyone in the field. And the reality would appear to be a strange alternate universe. It is impossible to overcome this (e.g. achieve gestalt shift) without exposing the root cause - a small error 50 years ago. Only way is to go back to correct the error and re-evolve the reality by relying on the Truth.

“Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.” … Galileo Galilei

            Nature and reality is immutable and unforgiving, even if it is small innocent error many decades ago. Even 10 times the combined wealth of mankind can’t change the reality. Unfortunately most software researchers choose to be ignorant rather than rational about their mistakes. The software researchers committed not a small mistake but a large mistake 50 years ago. The definitions and concepts for software components are not a small deviation from reality, but a huge deviation by completely ignoring the reality.

            Please kindly see figures 1 and 4 at http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html. The core dispute between years 1530 and 1660 was “which planet is at the centre”. Putting Earth at the centre resulted in a complex paradoxical paradigm. The concepts of heliocentric reality made no sense (appeared to be strange alternate universe) to the philosophers practising egocentrism. Saying 500 years ago that “the Sun is at centre” offended common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom.

            It is impossible to win this battle by relying on concepts of each paradigm. It was not a battle between concepts of two paradigms. It was a battle between the axioms at the root of two different paradigms - which planet was at the centre – two competing facts – only one can be Truth. Likewise, today’s dispute must be: what is the nature of the physical components and CBD of physical products. Whoever gets the facts closer to practicable absolute truth must win the argument. The only way to verify the Truth is by proposing falsifiable concepts and definitions, which can’t be proven wrong by empirical evidence.

They can’t rely on existing concepts, theories or definitions. How is it possible to determine, which one it true? Only thing anyone can rely on is empirical results and repeatable experiments. But researchers refuse to even investigate the reality. They are refusing to see real software component and applications built by assembling the real software components – Irrefutable proof for the reality. They choose to be ignorant rather than rational.

They continue to choose the option of relying on untested definitions for nature of components and CBD of physical products, by ignoring the reality. Anyone can observe retrograde motion by standing on so called static Earth, but we know what went wrong. So each paradigm must provide an irrefutable reasoning to any observation made in real world. The new proposal can’t be falsified by any observation or experimental results. Furthermore, the new proposal can only rely on observations and empirical results (but not on any unproven concepts or definitions and their derivatives).

            If the Earth were at the centre, then retrograde motion is reality. But they can’t use the retrograde motion to defend the geocentric model. It is called illegal circular logic. Likewise, no concept of today can be used to defend the definitions for the components (or existing CBSE paradigm). So I choose to confront the research community, hoping I can find at least 1% rational scientists, who are not yet indoctrinated into the cult: http://raju-chiluvuri.blogspot.in/2015/11/if-computer-science-is-not-real-science.html

            Until 400 to 500 years ago disputed point was which planet is at the centre. The entire knowledge and concepts represented by figure-1 ended up flawed and useless, when the error at the root is exposed. Today focus point must be discovering the accurate definitions (i.e. nature) of physical components for achieving real CBD that are closer to reality (yet practicable to adopt for software engineering).

            Today software researchers and scientists are indifference to the things that would be shocking to any scientist in basic sciences. It is not OK to rely on untested and unproven concepts to advance knowledge, because it is waste of effort if the concept is flawed. This error already cost a trillion dollars to world economy by manifesting as software crisis. This error resulted in a complex paradoxical software engineering paradigm, which is preventing them from seeing reality, which is all around and obvious to even a layman: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

Almost everyone agrees that, it is bad science to rely on untested unproven axioms for advancing our knowledge. No one disputes with this basic process or fact/rule, because it is not a rule or process that can be disputed. But they use endless excuses to not follow the basic process/rule. For example, by giving yet another untested and unproven excuse such as software is different or unique, again without giving any evidence why and in what manner? I get so many such untested and unproven evasive excuses, while still agreeing that it is a bad science to rely on unproven concepts.

If you continue to probe, they snub, ignore or continue to give stupid evasive examples, such as you can’t build software products as we can build computers by assembling commercially of the shelf components. So what? We can’t build tens of thousands of other CBD products either (as we can build the computers or cell phones). For starters, no other product (e.g. cars or airplanes) can differentiate from competing products by using software (e.g. OS & applications). Most products need to custom design large percent of core components to differentiate from competing products: http://www.real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD_postulations.html

I have hard time understanding, why they use every possible evasive tactics? How can anyone overcome evasive tactics? I have tried everything and running our off options. I face lot of arrogance and incompetence. And for few researchers, especially in India, only thing bigger than their incompetence is their arrogance.  Also I sense lot of prejudice, discrimination or even racism in the west. I am sure most of the cases racism may not be intentional but manifestation of subconscious prejudice.

Many researchers expect such discoveries or reality could only be proposed by a professor at western University such as MIT or Stanford. But certainly not open to accept form an Indian with an accent. It is certainly a form of prejudice and decimation, if one expects such scientific Reality can only come from a person who can speak perfect English, and not open to listen to an Indian, who is not good at English. Isn’t it discrimination or prejudice? Don’t anyone has equal right to do research & make discoveries?

Response from researchers starts from condescending, patronizing to insults and snubbing. Would they behave in the same way, if it is proposed by a professor at a western university? These kinds of things unlikely to come from a University professor, because almost every one of them indoctrinated into the cult.  These kinds of things likely come from outsider who accidentally stumbled onto something (no one is there to pullback into mainstream/cult), having lot of time to dedicate full time for a decade on the research and not accountable to anyone else except to his passion and irresistible curiosity.

All I am asking is just one proven Truth in support of the existing definitions and concepts, but not excuses and rationalization for things that can’t be made sense. On the other hand, I am asking an opportunity to demonstrate hundreds of real software components that are capable of achieving real CBSD and hierarchies of components built literally by plugging in the real software components… Is it too much to ask? Don’t reals scientists have an obligation to know the Truth? In fact, it is a sacred duty to investigate the Truth, which they have been abdicating by using evasive tactics. Unfortunately most software researchers argue that computer science is not real science (and software engineering is not real engineering). There is no problem with the computer science. The real problem is with the scientists: They are not practicing good science. They are practicing bad science by violating basic scientific process/rules and blaming the computer science.

Each Researcher has an obligation to know Truth – It is his sacred Duty

Except software products, no other product created by using components has spaghetti design. There is no valid reason, why software alone must be burdened with spaghetti design/code. This document/page provides 3-page summary about the reality about the CBD (Component Based Design). The 3 minute video gives just an example of reality of CBD. Each year mankind is building 100s of such new kind of products. Software experts use baseless excuses such as software is unique and different, without any valid justification for why and what manner it is unique/different.

Each and every component of such physical products is being constantly and frequently redesigned without being burdened by spaghetti code/design. Any component can be disassembled to refine and test individually to satisfy exact needs and fit perfectly by performing as expected. Engineer of any component is not forced to see even a single line of internal code implemented for any other component. Over 90% of the physical product is free from spaghetti code, since 90% of features and functionality is implemented in such custom individual components. This is the well-known and obvious reality of the design of any large physical products.

 Researchers and scientists has an obligation to know the Truth about reality. In fact, it is their sacred duty, because the very purpose of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth. Existing software engineering paradigm is rooted in fundamentally flawed assumptions “the reusable software parts/modules are components” or “any kind of useful software part is a kind of a component”. It has no basis in reality. In fact, most fact or concepts for CBD for software contradicts countless facts or concepts we know about the reality of physical functional components & CBD of physical products.

            Who invented or discovered this kind definitions for components or CBD? Who tested or validated it? No one knowns. No one can give names or documentation for proof. I can’t find answers to these basic questions, even after being in this industry for 30 years, of which 15 years doing research on components and CBD. The existing paradigm for software engineering has been evolving for 50 years by relying on such untested assumptions by considering the assumptions as self-evident truths.

            This paradigm is not much different from geocentric paradigm existed until 500 years ago. No one could name, who discovered “the Earth is static at the centre” and “who proved this”. They assumed that “the Earth is static” is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. On the other hand, we don’t need a Ph.D or MS to answer these simple questions: Even a school kid knows, who discovered “the sun is at the centre”.

Who proved this Truth? Many science college graduates may say newton’s discoveries of laws or motion, universal gravity and invention of calculous conclusively proved this fact. The invention of calculous allowed providing mathematical proof. Later we found many discoveries independently and repeatedly confirmed this Truth. For example, to name one: The observation of perturbation in the Orbit of Uranus lead to suspicion of existence of another planet and lead to the discovery of Neptune.

The most important thing now is, not proof alone but mankind found no evidence to contradict this Truth (i.e. the Sun is at the centre). In the basic sciences every basic Truth is discovered by someone (whose name/names is widely known) and the Truth is provide beyond any reasonable doubt, where the proof is also widely known. Any evidence to contradict the Truth or Proof would be documented and investigated until it reaches a logical conclusion. Without this kind well documented proof, no one would blindly rely on any unproven Truth for advancing our knowledge.

Computer science is in crisis because researchers sheepishly and blindly relying on wishful thinking and fantasy proposed 50 years ago (e.g. at a 1968 NASA conference) – building software by assembling COTS (Commercially Off The Shelf) parts from 3^rd party component vendors. They assumed that it is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. Some people named it Software-ICs (i.e. analogues to ICs that are used for building computers or cell-phones). It is just nothing but a 21^st century alchemy. No one can name, who discovered the nature of components and who proved it. No documentation can be found for any kind of proof or evidence. These flawed axioms deeply entrenched into our collective consciousness over 50 years.

Software researchers become slaves of their prejudices. They lost their integrity and have no courage to face the truth, plain and simple. They are blocking the progress of knowledge. As if this is not bad enough, they helped create the conditions for the establishment of a brainwashed and intolerant society that is hostile to freedom of thought. In short, establishing a dictatorship over minds against common sense and obvious reality. The above are harsh words, but undeniable Truths. The research community abdicated their sacred duty. They created a hostile situation by making it impossible to even express Truth freely and openly. Today, pioneer-soft.com created a GUI-API and tools that even a fresh software graduate can create real-software-components for achieving real CBD for software (having 0% spaghetti code). Many researchers refuse to see such empirical evidence, by demanding non-existing references such as research papers or text books. Where could anyone find reference to heliocentric model 500 years ago? Only way is to see empirical evidence.

Many researchers in medical field want a vaccine to prevent cancer – is it a discovery or wishful thinking? Many scientist in physics want to invent cold-fusion – It is not a discovery but just a desire. Only way to realize this wish is by making necessary scientific discoveries, but not by making up laws of nature without any basis in reality. Few software researchers 50 years ago wanted to invent components, such that, software developers can build software by assembling prefabricated reusable software components – this is not a discovery but a desire. It is not hard to prove that the desire is a fantasy no different from alchemy in the dark ages. They choose to make up nature of the components and CBD, instead of discovering the nature and reality about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products.

In basic sciences, researchers try to discover Truth about the reality (e.g. for achieving a desire such as cold fusion or a new vaccine) and try to invent things by relying the validated Truths/facts. In software, researchers invented the Truths (for components based on their fantasy) and try to fit the reality to the fantasy.

This mistake at the root of existing software engineering paradigm has huge costs – blocking the scientific progress by hostile to free thought. It is impossible to predict what great discoveries and inventions lay ahead (if and when we overcome these blockades), when computer science and software engineering respectively transformed in to real science and real engineering. I feel, discoveries that will lead to the invention of real AI (Artificial Intelligence) is one of them.

How axioms that are considered to be self-evident Truths could result in scientific crisis?

Mankind concluded thousands of years ago that “the Earth is static” (i.e. believing that it is self-evident Truth requires no proof or even any mention). Mankind relied on this axiom (without even realizing that it as an axiom) for investigating and understanding the reality. Over 1500 hundred years mankind evolved a complex paradoxical paradigm (which was later named as geocentric paradigm) comprising countless concepts based on countless observations such as epicycles and retrograde motions of planets.

Likewise, believing that it is self-evident Truth requires no proof or even any mention, software researchers concluded 50 years ago that it is impossible to invent real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical functional components) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software), where the real CBSD is equivalent to the CBD of one-of-a-kind physical products such as an experimental spaceship or prototype of next generation jet-fighter.

Software researchers and industry relied on this kind of axioms (without even realizing that they are relying of just unsubstantiated axioms, so not even making any mention of such baseless assumptions) for investigating and understanding the reality of software engineering. Over past 50 years mankind evolved a complex paradoxical paradigm (which was not yet named, because no one even aware of what those axioms or assumptions were) comprising countless concepts based on countless observations not much different from epicycles and retrograde motions.

Of course, such axioms or assumptions might be self-evident truth 50 years ago when assembly languages and FORTRAN were leading edge technologies. Are such assumptions still valid? Today I am sure we can invent any kind of software components having any kind of properties, if we can discover the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. Absolutely there is no valid reason why we can’t discover such essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component.

One of the primary purpose of basic sciences ranging from biology, chemistry, zoology or scientific discipline of microbiology such as virology, mycology, parasitology, and bacteriology is to find accurate descriptions for countless physical beings (i.e. diverse species) that are many times more complex than the physical functional components.  Hence, most the basic sciences must be fundamentally flawed or fiction, if it is impossible to discover the accurate description for the physical functional components, for example, to positively determine a part, whether if it is a component (for achieving real CBD) or not a component at all.

The accurate description for the physical functional components might be a set of essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If it is possible to discover such essential properties, there is no valid reason for why it is not possible to invent real software components that can achieve real CBSD by sharing the essential properties. At pioneer-Soft we invented such real software components that are capable of achieving real CBD for software products. Within weeks, we will be demonstrating them openly on our website and also providing libraries for building such components and source code for anyone to validate the real-software-components by achieving real CBD for software.

Is it a blasphemy to ask researchers to discover objective facts/truths?

Is mankind’s knowledge about animals or birds subjective? Is mankind’s knowledge such as many kinds of birds can fly or lay eggs, subjective? Are these kinds of facts subjective: large animals breathe and have blood, or trees produce oxygen? What is the true purpose of scientific research? Isn’t the purpose of science to discover and disseminate such knowledge of objective facts? When mankind’s knowledge contains millions of such objective facts about physical beings and physical phenomena, why can’t we find objective facts about the physical functional components and CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products?

Why experts and researchers treat that it is a blasphemy to ask them to discover objective facts about the quintessential nature of the large physical functional components (e.g. essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component) and essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by any CBD (Component Based Design) for one of a kind physical products such as building a working prototype of a next generation Jet-fighter, nuclear powered locomotive engine or spacecraft?

I am not asking to believe me. I am only asking to discover the objective facts. If anyone thinks he is a scientist or researcher, then it is his sacred duty to peruse the hidden truths. Discovering these truths expose one of the “fundamental errors” of computer science and software engineering, this already costed more than a trillion to world economy and continues to cost 100s of billions each year.

Whatever I am saying feel subjective to most experts or researchers, because they have been brainwashed for decades by unsubstantiated notions and concepts such as any kind of useful parts (e.g. having a given set of usefully properties or conform to any kind of so called component model) is a kind of software components. After a decade of my passionate research and hands on experience in creating large component hierarchies, it is not subjective to me.

Few experts ridiculed me for calling the baseless definitions for so called software components is a “fundamental error”. I respectfully request the experts to find a flaw in my definition for a “fundamental error”: Any error is a “fundamental error” if it has been preventing scientific or technological progress by side-tracking the progress into a wrong path resulting in a paradox filled with subjective concepts, inexplicable contradictions and if the field ended up in a crisis. In case of such fundamental error, no meaningful scientific or technological progress could be possible until the error is exposed for putting the progress on right tracks.

For example, untested assumption that “the Earth is static” was a “fundamental error”, because it resulted in a paradox filled with subjective concepts, inexplicable contradictions and ended up in a crisis. No meaningful progress would have been possible, if the error were not yet exposed for putting the scientific progress on right tracks. Discovery of universal gravity, Newton’s laws of motion and calculus to provide mathematical proof would could not have possible without the three laws of Kepler.

I am sure, Kepler or Galileo could not predict what great discoveries and inventions and scientific progress facilitated by their effort to put the scientific progress on right path or tracks. They must have speculated that the planetary orbits might be dictated by some kind of force of attraction, if they could predict the future discoveries.

I am sure, it is impossible to predict what kind of progress would be possible, when the progress is put on right path by discovering real software components for achieving the real CBD for software products. But we can be sure, there will be great discoveries and inventions lay ahead, when research start progressing on right path. For example, the greatest invention for increasing productivity (i.e. invention of interchangeable components) initially faced huge skepticism and resistance.

Many great scientific discoveries are hard to predict until they were made. The scientists (e.g. Newton, Darwin or Einstein) are became greatest scientists, because they made such complex and unpredictable scientific discoveries. But one thing we can be sure: Newton, Einstein and countless discoveries in physics could not have possible without exposing the fundamental error “the Earth is static” and by continuing on the wrong path. Likewise, we can be sure there is going to be no great invention or discovery in software engineering or computer science until such fundamental errors are fixed. In science and engineering, wrong path or mistakes don’t lead to discovery of Americas (but end up in dead end crisis), especially after wasting many decades.

If there exist anything worth discovering, we could have discovered decades ago. Many experts concluded that software engineering was in crisis decades ago (without realizing the fundamental error at the root). After all their attempts to overcome software crisis failed, Dr. Brooks prophesized ‘there is no silver bullet’. It is now became a self-fulfilling prophesy for nearly three decades.

Many experts quoted this and others as a justification and proof that software engineering is by nature unique and different. But it is not hard to prove that (e.g. our website has proof), even the designers of physical products face crisis (e.g. spaghetti code) no different form the software crisis, if they are prevented from using replaceable functional components to build component hierarchies (i.e. larger and larger container components and eventually the product), where the replaceable functional components are built and tested individually (free from spaghetti code), and can be unplugged to refine and test individually (free from spaghetti code) to satisfy evolving future needs.

Best Regards,

Raju