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?