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.