I am disparately searching for
real scientists (doing research in computer science everywhere, but not able to
find. I greatly appreciate, if anyone can direct me where I can find real
scientist (who can help me in this noble effort): I need help in creating
awareness by providing irrefutable proof that computer science is not a real
science because it violates proven and well established scientific processes,
principles and breaks accepted scientific rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions
Any scientific discipline
having unsubstantiated beliefs at its core can’t be real science, even if the
beliefs (that are not supported by any proof) are widely accepted as
self-evident truths. No scientist can be a real scientist who blindly defends
such known unsubstantiated beliefs by refusing to investigate facts that can
expose the flaw in such known unsubstantiated beliefs even when the facts are
published openly.
Most of the software
researchers and scientists admit that many concepts and definitions for
software components and CBSD are rooted in beliefs (but not rooted in facts). If
anyone disagrees, he/she must direct me where I can find evidence to prove that
they are facts (but not beliefs). With all due respect, computer science needs
real scientists for transforming it into real science. For example, existing
definitions for software components and CBSD (Component Based Software Design)
are rooted in 50 years old unsubstantiated beliefs and myths such as software
is unique and/or different and it is impossible to achieve real CBSD that is
equivalent to the CBD of physical products, without ever even making any
attempt to know what is the nature and true essence of the CBD (Component Based
Design) of large physical products: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design
It is impossible to practice
real COP (Component Oriented Programming) essential for achieving real CBSD, if
we can’t create real-software-components. Today no other existing GUI technology
is capable of creating real software components, so I have to invent such GUI
technologies for creating real software components: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming
It may be very hard to spot
such error slipped through 50 years ago and hidden undetected for many decades.
If the error is spotted (may be by chance) and pointed out, is it hard to
confirm the error and all the evidence is published openly backed by tangible
and repeatable experimental results? I am more than happy to provide any
evidence and repeatable results anyone needs to expose these errors. We created
many GUI applications by employing COP using our GUI technologies and help
anyone in creating GUI application by employing COP using our GUI technologies.
I contacted countless
respected research organizations and researchers many times in the past for
help in my effort to expose the flawed beliefs. Unfortunately many experts feel
offended for questioning the validity of such belief/myths. Most of them admitted
that the beliefs have never been validated. Can a real scientist be feel
offended, if I point out that a belief might be flawed? Are you a real scientist,
if you feel offended for questioning an untested belief? If fact, it must be
shocking to a real scientist that such an untested belief is at the root of
CBSD. All the effort invested for past few decades to discover retrograde
motions and epicycles end up wasted.
Exposing the flawed beliefs
certainly leads to transforming computer science into real science and software
engineering into real engineering. No scientific discipline can be real science
as long as it has such known beliefs (that are flawed) at its core. Real
science must be rooted in irrefutable facts and reality, rather than rooted in
unsubstantiated beliefs/myths (postulated out of thin air in the dark ages,
when the scientific discipline is in its infancy). I greatly appreciate, if
anyone can direct me where and/or how I can find real scientist, who could help
me in this noble effort to expose the flawed myths/beliefs for transforming
computer science into real science.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
