Tuesday, May 19, 2015

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,