Saturday, August 27, 2016

How is it possible to compel researchers to gain basic knowledge (without violating basic scientific rules) to solve certain unsolved problems?

Dear Friends,

            Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could any one draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint a picture of an elephant, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how the elephants looks like?

            How could any one possibly say whether it is possible or not to invent real CBD for software, without ever even trying to know what is the nature/essence of the CBD (Component Based Design)? No software researcher in the world knows (e.g. can be able to provide even right general rough description) what is the true essence of the CBD of Physical Products, particularly the design and development of one of a kind physical products such as experimental spacecraft or pre-production fully tested final working models of next generation jet-fighters. Any one can prove me wrong by providing accurate description for real CBD.

            Don't we need to have rough or basic knowledge about nature and essential properties of physical components necessary for the CBD of physical products, if we want to paint (i.e. invent) equivalent virtual components (having the essential properties) necessary for the CBD of virtual software products in cyberspace. Today software experts (i.e. of CBSD/CBSE) can't even recognize, even if a bunch of pictures of elephants (i.e. real-software-components) fall in their lap. Even if you show real-software-components and real CBSD, the so called CBSD/CBSE experts think you are crazy and steadfastly snub the facts/reality. I have been trying to demonstrate real-software-components and CBD for software for years, but not able to make any progress. Most of the software researchers deny even obvious facts, observations and evidence.

            Software researchers have been painting the nature and reality of so called software components and CBD (Component Based Design) for software products for about 45 years, without making any effort to know what is nature and essential aspects of CBD and essential properties of components. This completely altered their perception of reality, which is preventing them to recognize obvious reality or accept simple evidence or obvious facts.

            The scientific methods have proven track-record to systematically gather, investigate and analyze evidence to discover nature and essential properties of any kind of physical beings/things. The nature & essential properties of physical components are objective facts, which can be discovered by employing scientific methods. Scientific methods have proven track-record for discovering essential properties of not only far more complex physical things (e.g. viruses, bacteria, light, particles such as electrons) but also uniquely and universally shared properties by far more diverse species/beings (e.g. animals, plants or chemicals).

            If the Sun is at the center, believing that any planet other than sun at the center and relying on such flawed axiom for expanding body of knowledge (e.g. to comprehend the reality) lead to a crisis (filled with anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions such as inexplicable retrograde motions and epicycles). Any scientific or engineering discipline and research efforts end up in wrong path, if it starts relying on flawed axioms (e.g. such axiomatic beliefs by assuming them to be self-evident facts). The discipline ends up in crisis (e.g. paradoxical paradigm or altered perception of reality and conventional wisdom), if the research efforts continue in the wrong path for prolonged time without realizing such mistake.

            Likewise, if the essential properties of components are {R, S}, it is an error to define properties of components any thing other than the properties {R, S}. Software engineering ends up in a crisis (e.g. altered perception), if research efforts try to expand body of knowledge by relying on such flawed properties for prolonged period. It is a violation of basic rules or methods of mathematics (or logic) to rely on flawed axioms, even computer science was to be a sub-domain of mathematics alone. Using flawed axioms leads to inconsistent axiomatic system (having contradictions), which is a classic example of a crisis.

            The infamous software crisis would be a thing of past, even if few software researchers spend just few days (by employing proven scientific methods without violating processes and principles) to discover objective facts and reality such as what is the true essence of ideal CBD for the physical products and the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered, it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components havening the essential properties.

            Many software researchers react as if I asked them to leave their beloved religion and join another religion, if I ask him to just investigate obvious evidence and observations using proven scientific methods to discover the truth and reality about ideal CBD. I am only requesting not to commit heresy by violating basic religious tenets of our beloved religion (i.e. of advancing science & technology).

            The purpose of basic research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which doesn't necessarily mean discovering only absolute Truths, but also getting closer and closer to the absolute Truths, without violating basic religious tenets (i.e. widely accepted and proven scientific processes and principles). Itis a heresy to violate basic scientific processes and principles, because violating basic scientific processes and principles diverts research effort into a wrong path and ends up in a crisis (i.e. a paradoxical paradigm and altered perception of reality), if research effort continues in the wrong path for long enough time.

            Even a high school kid should not have problem drawing a rough picture certainly resembling an elephant (without any ambiguity), if he has seen the pictures of the elephants or if he has basic knowledge about the elephants. On the other hand, even the best painter (i.e. software expert) can’t draw a picture (i.e. provide even rough description) that even remotely resembles an elephant (i.e. CBD), if has no clue what the elephants looks like (i.e. the CBD). Today software researchers have no clue what is the nature and aspects of CBD to even roughly describe the true nature or essential aspects of the CBD.

How can I convenience software researchers that it is essential to gain basic knowledge using scientific methods having proven track record for acquiring certain kinds of necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) to solve certain software problems that are not yet solved. The problems such as real CBD for software and real Artificial-Inelegance (that are unsolved for a long time) could not be solved withoutsuch BoK, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods (withoutviolating basic scientific principles and processes).

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

No comments:

Post a Comment