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.
