Saturday, June 18, 2016

Is it heresy to request software scientists to not violate basic well established scientific processes, principles & proven rules?

 Dear Friends,

Trying to advance any scientific or technological discipline by relying on unproven belief (even if the belief is perceived to be a self-evident truth), is a well-established violation of scientific processes, principles or rules. Software researchers have been trying to advance CBSD (Component Based Software Design) for 50 years by relying on such unproven beliefs, myths or fantasy. That is, existing flawed CBSD paradigm is rooted in unproven beliefs (that were perceived to be self-evident facts 50 years ago) and has been evolving for 50 years, without knowing or realizing the huge violation of basic scientific processes, principles or rules. That is, existing CBSD paradox (i.e. flawed of perception of altered reality) is result of over 45 years of passionate hard work and efforts of tens of thousands of researchers at any time.

Any scientific or technological research diverts into a wrong path (away from right path), as soon as it relies on a flawed belief (e.g. by erroneously assuming it to be an accurate fact). The well-established scientific principles and process forbids any real scientist from ever relying on a belief (e.g. an assumption), except for theoretical experimentation and exploration to see if the path leads a useful discovery. Hence it is absolutely essential to document any belief (that the belief is just an assumption, that is not yet proven), until the belief is proven to be a fact beyond any doubt.

If and when the belief is proven to be a demonstrable and repeatable fact, the proof must be clearly documented, so that the proof can be independently validated and could be falsified, if the fact is flawed. Anything that is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt must be treated and clearly documented as a belief. No belief can be treated as a fact until the proof is provided openly and independently validated. The proof must be in open domain for anyone to validate or to falsify. Such proven belief may be considered as a fact only as long as the proof cannot be falsified by anyone.

Most of the definitions and/or concepts at the root of existing CBSD paradigm are made out of thin air, based on wishful thinking and pure fantasy, such as, building software products by assembling COTS (Commercially Of The Shelf) components from third party component vendors, as computer hardware engineers design and build computers by using standardised reusable ICs (e.g. CPU or DRAM) and other parts such as Hard Drive, CD-player or network-card etc. It is a pure fantasy and fiction, in light of reality and design of any other physical products (e.g. cars or airplanes), which can’t be competitively differentiated by using software OS and applications:

The researchers violated the basic scientific principles and rules by relying on beliefs. If they considered that the beliefs are facts, they violated the scientific process and principles by not documenting the proof, so that others can validate the proof independently. Also allows the future generations to falsify the proof, if and when new discoveries or technological advancements make it possible to invalidate the proof. In real science, it is impossible to find any widely accepted fact having no proof. That is, it is not a real science, if it relies on unproven belief, which were considered to be a fact (without having well documented proof, which is open for independent validation). Anyone who can’t understand this very simple reasoning or basic scientific principles or processes is not a real scientist. It is not wrong to rely on beliefs, but it is violation of scientific process to not clearly documenting the beliefs as assumptions.

I am sure any good collage student of science can understand this logic. I have no idea, why the most brilliant computer scientists have problem accepting these facts and logic. Instead they feel that it is a heresy, if I mention that it is wrong violate such basic well established scientific processes, principles and proven rules.

Isn’t it the stupidest violation in history of science, many times stupider than the flawed belief that was lead to the geocentric paradigm? It is not hard to understand why mankind few 1000 years ago concluded that “the Earth is static” is a fact. But how any one can possible understand the foolish definitions at the root of CBSD such as reusable and/or standardised parts are components, and using such fake components is CBSD.

As per these foolish definitions, parts equivalent to highly standardised and reusable ingredient parts such as 53 grade cement, TMT steal, paint, plastic, metals, silicon wafers or alloys are components (and using them to build houses is CBD). On the other hand, software parts equivalent to the highly customised components (that are neither reusable nor standardised) used in designing and building one-of-a-kind physical products (e.g. prototype of a next generation jet-fighter or experimental spacecraft) are not components, and using such parts is not CBD. Isn’t it these beliefs (that are at the root of existing CBSD paradigm) many times more foolish than the 2000 years old belief “the Earth is static”?

The belief “the Earth is static” evolved for 1000 years into a complex altered perception of reality depicted by FIG-1 – doesn’t it look like a huge spaghetti code? The FIG-4 depicts the exiting perception of reality described by Kepler’s laws – So simple and elegant (compared to FIG-1):

Existing CBSD paradigm evolving for nearly 50 years by relying of flawed beliefs and it looks 10 times uglier than the FIG-1. When the flaw at the root of existing CBSD is exposed by using facts, real CBD for software will be simple and elegant as illustrated by FIG-2 at: and FIG-4 at:

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Thursday, June 9, 2016

I am searching for real scientists. Are there any real scientists doing research in computer science or software engineering?

Dear Friends,

           The existing CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is rooted in beliefs, which I can prove are flawed. Software researchers violated basic scientific rules and principles 50 years ago by relying on untested beliefs, this resulted in software crisis. I can’t find even a single real scientist who understands basic scientific principles and relying on untested beliefs is gross violation of the scientific principles.

In the history of science, I could find only one other example, where a scientific discipline relied on a belief (i.e. the earth is static) and evolved into a complex geocentric paradoxical paradigm, which altered perception of reality and ended up in very costly scientific crisis. Can anyone name any example other than existing CBSD paradigm, which is rooted in beliefs?

Can anyone of you name any other untested and unproven belief in any other scientific discipline, except the untested & unproven belief (i.e. the Earth is static) that eventually resulted in complex geocentric paradox (an altered perception of reality). No other research community of any real scientific discipline ever relied or accepted relying on untested and unproven belief for advancing any other scientific discipline.

It is beyond my comprehension, why none of the software researcher feels such gross violation (i.e. relying on an unproven belief) is a problem. Why it is hard to understand this simple fact/rule: Relying on flawed belief/fact diverts research efforts into a wrong path? In history of science, it is impossible to find any exception to this basic scientific rule. If brute force (i.e. research effort) is employed to advance the discipline, it ends up in crisis (since nothing useful could possibly exist in such a wrong path).

Any research effort to advance a scientific or engineering discipline diverts into a wrong path (that certainly leads to a crisis), as soon as it started relying on flawed belief/fact. There is no exception to this rule. How anyone possibly assume blindly that computer science (or software engineering) could be an exception to such a basic rule or principle? After software engineering ended up in crisis, many experts (e.g. Dr. Brook’s “No Silver Bullet”) try to rationalize that it is the nature of software engineering by using meticulous observations of retrograde motions and elaborate mapping of epicycles, which are only deceptions of fundamentally altered perception of reality.

Anyone can prove me wrong by showing even a single exception to this rule: It is a nature of any real science to end up in a wrong path, if researchers rely on beliefs, if the beliefs are flawed. It is inevitable that the scientific discipline ends up in crisis, if researches blindly employ brute force to advance the discipline. For example, if anyone foolishly believes that he can fly and jumps-off 900 feet tall cliff or building, can he avoid the bad consequences of his foolish belief (i.e. if he can’t fly)?

Relying on untested beliefs is a gross violation of scientific rules and principles. It is impossible to avoid consequences (when any scientific discipline makes such huge foolish mistake). Hence software have been suffering the consequences for at least 3 decades (at a cost of trillions of dollars). There is no other way to overcome the crisis (to prevent wasting trillions more), except exposing the flawed beliefs that diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The existing CBSD paradigm (an altered perception of reality) is the result of tens of thousands of software researchers investing their research efforts for decades without realizing that they are pushing it in a wrong path.

            Prove me wrong by showing an exception to this very basic scientific rule in the history of science: “Relying on flawed a belief” is not only a blunder but also a violation of basic scientific principle. Please don’t give me examples of beliefs, that later turned out to be right (e.g. by luck). I am only talking about the beliefs that are flawed.

In case of CBSD, I can prove that the beliefs are flawed, if any researcher is willing to see the evidence. If he can’t understand this simple logic, is he a real scientist? No one can deny simple scientific rules or principles. I don’t know how to prove obvious facts. Let me quote Galileo (last person struggled to expose such flawed belief): "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.". I couldn’t find any other examples of such flawed beliefs (at the root of any scientific discipline) to learn from other’s experiences, which could be helpful in my struggle to expose the flawed beliefs.

            The research community used excuses such as: If the Earth is moving, why the Moon is not left behind (or how could Moon follow)? They refuse to see the evidence (e.g. Galileo’s Moons), when Galileo offered to show proof using advanced telescope invented by Galileo. The best way to expose this kind of flawed beliefs is investigating physical evidence. I can show equivalent physical evidence: many real software components & CBD applications built by assembling the real software components.

            Almost every software scientist or researcher readily admit that existing CBSD is rooted in unproven beliefs, but they continue to deny any violation of fundamental scientific principles. They pretend to be scientists. How could they be real scientists without even knowing that it is an error to violate basic scientific principles? This kind of thing never happened in the history of mankind, not even in the dark ages.

It may be understandable, if someone makes a mistake in a multiplication (e.g. 17 * 29 = 487). How could anyone continue to deny the mistake, even after the error is clearly pointed out? How could anyone insist that it is not a wrong answer, while claiming to be an expert in mathematics?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri