Monday, February 29, 2016

If every one refuses to see proof, how is it possible to expose flaws in scientific foundation & blatant violations of scientific processes/rules?

Exposing tacit assumptions having errors at the root of any deeply entrenched paradigm is one the most complex tasks for any scientist, but when successful results in a real scientific revolution and unprecedented scientific advancements. The geocentric paradigm is one of the classic examples for such paradigm that has evolved from tacit assumption “the Earth is static”.

A tacit assumption is an assumption no one consciously aware of its existence and/or not documented to educate subsequent researchers.  That is, many concepts and observations are created and documented by relying on the tacit assumption (may be without even consciously aware of the tacit assumption). These early concepts and observations would become foundation for constructing (i.e. evolving) mankind’s perception of reality, for example, by adding more and more concepts and observations by the research efforts of successive generations of researchers. That is, mankind’s perception of reality evolves and expands over time as more and more concepts and observations are added by relying on these foundational concepts and observations.

Please review Figure-1 in this web page that represents the mankind’s perception of reality up until 500 years ago:

This perception of reality (i.e. geocentric paradigm) had been evolved for nearly 2000 years and by the efforts of thousands of astronomers and philosophers. This perception of reality consists of (and/or supported by) thousands of observations and concepts. All these concepts and observations consistent with each other and paint a perception of reality that is consistent with the Figure-1.

But unfortunately there existed not even a single accepted or documented concept and/or observation in support of reality painted by the Figure-4 until 500 years ago. The figure-4 represents the perception of reality exists today. Of course, today there exists thousands of concepts and observations consistent with each other and paint a perception of reality that is consistent with the reality represented by Figure-4.

Almost each and every concept and observation of geocentric paradigm contradicts existing heliocentric paradigm. Likewise, almost each and every concept and observation of heliocentric paradigm contradicts geocentric paradigm. In other words, one can find a dozen observations or concepts of geocentric paradigm to contradict any of the concepts and observations of heliocentric paradigm.

Hence how is it possible to start presenting heliocentric paradigm? Whichever concept one can possibly pick in heliocentric paradigm can be discredited by a dozen widely accepted concepts or observations of then deeply entrenched geocentric paradigm (and conventional wisdom). In fact, saying “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense (and conventional wisdom). In this hostile and inhospitable conditions, how is it possible to show proof?

One must be willing to spend considerable time to investigate the truth by analyzing the observations and concepts with open mind, where each of the concepts and observations fills a piece to paint the perception of reality for the heliocentric model. No research paper can present even single concept (that only paints a piece – a small part) backed by observations, especially when a dozen concepts or observations of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom contradict the piece (i.e. a small part painted by the concept backed by observations).

Furthermore each piece must be backed by physical evidence (e.g. predictable results from repeatable experiments or observations). Unfortunately most researchers refuse to see such experimental results, even in the 21st century. Kindly recall Galilio’s famous letter to Kepler in year 1610:

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

Is there any wonder, it took over 100 years for gestalt shift from geocentric paradigm to heliocentric paradigm? Please see the chronology of the events that illustrates the complexity for such gestalt shift:

How could Galileo expose the error at the root of geocentric paradigm, even if Galileo has spaceship (instead of Telescope) to take them outer space to show planetary paths in time-lapse motion, if fellow philosophers refuse to even talk to him. Apparently this kind of behaviour frustrated many other great scientists such as Max Plank how said “science advances one funeral at a time”, father of dark matter Fritz Zwicky referred many of his colleagues as “spherical bastards” and of course Einstein’s famous quote about infinite human stupidity.

I have been facing the kind problem to expose flawed tacit assumptions at the root of now deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm. It is highly frustrating, because I have been struggling to show proof for many years and almost every researcher refused to see physical proof: The real software components that are absolutely essential for real COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software).

For example, software researchers absolutely have no clue what is real CBSD, but insist that it is impossible. How can they blindly insist without even trying to know what is the essence and nature of real CBSD:

Researchers of Computer sciences are practising very bad science by blatantly violating scientific principles, processes and rules:

I contacted many research organizations (e.g.,, and SEI/CMU) requested many times to give me an opportunity to demonstrate physical evidence (e.g. GUI applications built by literally assembling real-software-components, which are created by using our GUI-API). Today no other GUI-API is capable of creating such real-software-components, because no one else in the world even know what real software components are and what real CBSD is. I even told them that, they can take legal action against me, if I am wrong. As a responsible researcher, I feel, I must sue the organizations for being negligent and abdicating their basic duties and obligations, but unfortunately I can’t afford such a law suit.

I am beginning to think, I might not be able to expose the erroneous tacit assumptions of computer science that are at the root existing deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm and CBSE. If I fail, I believe, no meaningful lasting progress is possible in the field of real CBSE. I feel, exposing the error transforms computer science in to real science, which I feel is essential for many other discoveries and disciplines such as real Artificial Intelligence. For example, basic sciences are not real sciences until exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradigm and exposing the error resulted in transforming basic sciences into real sciences.

The basic scientific principles, processes and rules were created and perfected for past 400 years to guide the research for real sciences. No real science can violate the proven scientific principles, processes and established rules. But unfortunately researchers of computer science blatantly violating the principles, processes and rules by using unsubstantiated excuses such as software is unique and/or different. It is hotly debated, weather the computer science is real science or pseudo-science.

In pseudo sciences like, economic or social sciences, it is not possible to follow scientific principles and processes. I am sure, computer science is not real science because it is blatantly violating basis scientific processes and principles. However computer science can be a real science, because it is possible to follow the basis scientific processes and principle. But unfortunately researchers ignoring my best efforts to make them aware of blatant violations of scientific principles and processes. Almost every one refused to give me an opportunity to present sound reasoning backed by irrefutable physical evidence. Isn’t it gross negligence, especially if they are working for national agencies such as and, who are appointed to position of responsibility for actively seeking disruptive scientific discoveries that can result in huge scientific and technological advancements?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Thursday, February 18, 2016

What kind of scientists deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules?

Is it acceptable, if judges blindly argue and/or advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating basic constitutional principles or breaking basic laws of the land? If any judge does it, isn’t it a clear abdication of his/her sacred duty of doing justice to innocent victims?

Why is it any different, if scientists blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? The very purpose and true essence of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth, for example, by discovering new scientific facts for expanding boundaries of mankind’s knowledge for getting closer and closer to absolute truth.

Where can I find real scientists, who are not going to blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? I have been searching for real scientists in the fields of computer science and software engineering for over 5 years and not able to find even single real scientist.

Isn’t it clear violation of scientific process to blindly define the nature (e.g. essential properties) of physical functional components and the nature (e.g. essential aspects or true essence) of the ideal CBD of physical products, without any basis in reality or fact (but based on wishful thinking or in pursuit of a fictional fantasy)?

Isn’t clear violation of scientific rules to rely on such definitions (made out of thin air without any basis in reality or fact) for advancing scientific and/or technological knowledge by concluding and blindly defending that the definitions are self-evident truths, where such inalienable self-evident truths (i.e. definitions for software components and CBSE) requires no validation or proof?

Scientific research often relies on two kinds of enquiry (1) enquiry of fact of nature (e.g. irrefutable facts/results obtained by either observation of reality/nature or from reliably repeatable experiments) and (2) enquiry of effects or phenomena of nature, for example by using rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations (e.g. to quantify or measure the empirical results or facts).

Some irrefutable discovery of facts include, (1) the Sun is at the center of our planetary system and planets are circling around the Sun (2) there exists attraction (i.e. gravitational force) between any two bodies having measurable mass, and (3) the force of attraction increases if the masses of the bodies are increased and force of attraction decreases if the distance between the bodies is increased.

These are few examples for absolute scientific Truths proven beyond any doubt. Please notice that these absolute scientific Truths not try to quantify the orbits of planets (as Kepler did it) of force of attraction with respect to masses or distance (as Newton did it). The first step of scientific discovery includes answering broader questions, such as which planet is at the center, is there exists force of attraction between any two bodies having mass? If the answer is Yes, what kind of effect the masses and distance have on the force of attraction?

The second step is to understand and explain the phenomena of nature: Scientist need to quantify orbits of planets or measure the planetary paths by applying rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations. That is want the discoveries and inventions of Kepler and Newton did.

Now let’s come to computer science: Does the physical functional components uniquely and universally share any nature (e.g. a set of essential properties)? If answer is Yes, is it possible to discover the set of essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by every physical functional component? If answer is Yes, is it possible to invent real software components that are equivalent to the physical functional component by having the set of essential properties?

Unfortunately software researchers blindly concluded 50 years ago and have been insisting that the answers are - No, without ever even attempting to make any investigation of facts. It is impossible to find that anyone else ever even tried to investigate such basic facts in the past 50 years.

Instead researchers 50 years ago decided to define nature (i.e. essential properties) to suite their wishful thinking or fantasy such as building large software applications by assembling reusable standardized COTS (Commercial Of the Shelf) components as hardware engineers build computers. To suite (or in pursuit of) this fantasy, they defined that reusable and/or standardized software parts are software components.

Likewise, since 1970 many kinds of software components were invented, where each kind of software components by definition is a kind of software parts having a given set of properties or conforming to a so called component model, without any basis in reality or facts but in pursuit of a fictional fantasy or wishful thinking. Any scientific discipline or engineering paradigm evolved or in pursuit of such fictional fantasy by relying on such baseless myths is nothing more than mythology. Isn’t it a classic definition for fake or pseudo science?

Whenever I try to point out numerous violations of basic scientific principles, proven processes, established rules and resultant epicycles and contradictions, each of the respected software scientists insist that software is unique or different and computer science is not real science. In my view, computer science can become real science. The problem is that the software scientists are fake or pseudo scientists, who may be brilliant but foolishly refusing to learn and practice basic scientific processes, processes and rules: 

I believe, so called self styled scientists who practice such fake science are fake scientists. Forgive me, if it is offensive to call such software scientists fake scientists, if they deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules.

They refuse to engage in productive scientific debate or inspect physical evidence (i.e. real-software-components and real CBSD) but instead resort to insults and personal attacks. Is this really what happens in real basic sciences? The real sciences whet through that phase 400 years ago. In 21st century, such discovery of an error in seed axioms at the root of any basic sciences is shocking to real scientists, which certainly leads to scramble for answers why such error (i.e. untested unproven axiom) slipped without detection. Isn’t he a fake scientist, if it is not shocking or if he tries to justify the error by using baseless excuses such as the scientific discipline is unique or different (so not real science)?

It is the time to call a spade a spade. If a science is fake science, it must be called a fake science. Any scientist, who defends, encourages or teaches such fake science is a fake scientist. The corrupted system must be completely rebuilt by discovering absolute truths. In the modern 21st century there is room for intermediate steps (an another less flawed system) such as Tychonic model (that is proposed as a compromise between geocentric model and heliocentric model).

Some of the basic truths include, there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential properties) that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components. It is possible to discover the essential properties. It is possible to invent real software components that share the essential properties and hence are equivalent to the physical functional components.

Likewise there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential aspects) that is uniquely and universally shared by CBD of each and every known physical product. It is possible to discover the essential aspects. It is possible for the real software components to achieve the real CBD for software that shares the essential aspects and hence is equivalent to the physical functional components.

I can provide irrefutable proof for these basic truths. This is the first step of discovery process, so it is not necessary to quantify these basic truths in the first step of discovery. Quantifying the accurate definitions is second step. I have tried to quantify the accurate descriptions, which may not be absolute truths but, I believe, close enough to the absolute truths. There is always room for improvements.

For example, Kepler’s laws to quantify the planetary orbits or Newton’s laws of to quantify universal gravity are not absolute truths but close enough for most of the practical purposes. For example, Newton’s laws of universal gravity explained the minor anomalies in the Kepler’s laws and Einstein’s theory of general relativity exposed minor anomalies in the Newton’s laws of universal gravity. Of course, researchers across the world are relentlessly working to expand the human knowledge closer and close to absolute Truth (i.e. in pursuit of the absolute Truth).

None of this would have possible without exposing the error at the root of geocentric model. Exposing the error allowed scientific progress we are enjoying now by putting the derailed scientific progress on the right tracks.  Likewise, no meaningful scientific progress is possible in computer science without putting the progress on right tracks by following proven scientific process and established scientific rules without denying basic scientific principles. We must expose fake scientists to attract real scientists or encourage real scientific research for transforming computer science form a fake science to a real science.

Real scientific research requires open honest exchange of ideas and documentation of irrefutable facts by real scientists who know basic scientific principles and who are honestly willing to follow the basic scientific principles (e.g. processes and rules). Today there exists inhospitable environment that is hostile to open honest discussion and to the very survival of real scientists. Fake scientists are ignorant of basic scientific principles and defending the existing flawed paradox by refusing to follow (or hostile to) basic scientific processes or rules.

My polite hypocrisy not worked for past 5 years, which is forcing me to consider brutal honesty.  How long one should beat around the bush (e.g. by using polite hypocrisy or humble persuasion to not hurt egos)? Eventually one would be left with no other option except calling a spade (fake scientists) a spade (i.e. fake scientist), if fake scientists burry their heads in the sand and refuse to see facts and reasoning.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri