The geocentric paradigm had been evolved for centuries comprising of countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence, which are consistent with each other and together paint a complex picture (i.e. perception) of reality. The FIG-1 illustrates the picture painted by the BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for over 1600 years up until 16th century, where the BoK flied with countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence (e.g. retrograde motions in FIG-2 and epicycles in FIG-3) in the webpage http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html
The existing Heliocentric paradigm painted a radically different picture (i.e. perception) of the reality by using countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence. The FIG-4 illustrates the picture painted by the BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated since 16th century. Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for Heliocentric paradigm consistent with each other and also consistent with the picture painted in the FIG-4. Likewise, Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for Geocentric paradigm consistent with each other and also consistent with the picture in the FIG-1.
Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for one paradigm contradicts many of the concepts, observations or empirical evidences in the BoK for another paradigm. In other words, each concept or observation in geocentric paradigm is consistent with the root axiom (i.e. the Earth is at the center), but inconsistent (or in contradiction) with any other axiom (e.g. the Sun is at the center) and BoK acquired by relying the other axiom.
The axiom at the root of geocentric paradigm is "the Earth is static (at the center)". That is, the geocentric paradigm evolved for centuries by relying on a flawed belief that "the Earth is static" (by concluding that the belief is a self-evident fact). Later it was discovered that the Sun is at the center. The seed axiom at the root of existing heliocentric paradigm is "the Earth is static (at the center)". The existing heliocentric paradigm is supported by a BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising of many concepts, observations and empirical evidence, which are discovered or acquired by relying on seed axiom "the Sun is at center".
The BoK for each paradigm comprises of concepts, observations or empirical evidences that are consistent with each other and also consistent with the root or seed axioms of respective paradigms (since each of the items in the BoK had been created by relying on the seed or root axioms). In other words, each paradigm is supported by a BoK (comprises of items such as concepts, observations or empirical evidences), where each of the items is created or acquired by relying on seed axioms at the root of respective paradigms. Both paradigms paint radically different picture (or perception) of realities, where BoK of each paradigm is consistent with respective seed axioms (or goals).
The existing software engineering paradigm in general and CBSE/CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) in particular has been evolving for decades by relying on a flawed belief that: the CBSE is building software by using software parts (i.e. so called software components) such as reusable and/or standardized software parts (e.g. so called component libraries or models). The existing CBSE paradigm supported by a BoK (comprising countless items such as concepts, observations or empirical evidences), where the items are consistent with each other and all of the items together paints a picture (i.e. perception) of reality. This existing perception of reality for CBD for software products is radically different from the reality we know about the CBD of physical products in general, and particularly the component based design and development or engineering of one-of-a-kind physical products such as an experimental spacecraft or pre-production working models (that are fully-tested prototype and ready for mass production) of next-generation jet-fighters.
I used scientific methods for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) that comprises of many concepts, observations or empirical evidences for painting the picture of reality of the CBD of physical components. I also made necessary inventions for achieving the reality for the software products. Each of our concept, observation or empirical evidence is consistent with the reality of the CBD of physical products, but unfortunately each of them can be contradicted by dozens of concepts, observations or empirical evidences in the BoK of existing CBSE paradigm. Of course, dozens of items in the BoK for geocentric paradigm contradicted each item in the BoK for heliocentric paradigm. This kind of paradigm shift can't be achieved by writing a paper or 45 minutes-presentation of slides. I believe, it is possible to instill enough BoK in 2 to 3 days for new paradigm to prove that the new paradigm paints superior picture of reality, and is far more useful and capable of overcomes the crisis created by the exiting paradigm (rooted in flawed axioms).
The main difference between normal paradigm shift and Kuhnian paradigm shift: (1) normal paradigm shift creates new BoK, which not necessarily contradicts or invalidate exiting paradigms, and (2) Kuhnian paradigm shift exposes fundamentally flawed paradigm and need to replace the whole BoK (which is filled with flawed concepts and observations) of the old paradigm by a new BoK. In other words, due to an error at the root, researchers end up creating an altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction to the reality.
The Kuhnian paradigm shift replaces such flawed altered perception of reality by more accurate perception of reality (that puts scientific or engineering progress on right tracks, since the error at the root put the progress in wrong path and ended up in a crisis). Exposing the error opens up vast uncharted opportunities unprecedented advancements. For example, mankind would be in dark ages, if the error at the root of the geocentric paradigm were not yet exposed. Likewise, exposing the error at the root of software engineering leads to unprecedented progress and revolution.
If any observation or empirical evidence doesn't fit the existing BoK or if it can't be bent or twisted to fit the existing BoK., such observation or empirical evidence would be thrown out or ignored by using silly or baseless excuses such as software is unique or different. I am sure, philosophers did the same thing up until 500 years ago. Only observation or empirical evidence that can be bent or twisted to fit the geocentric paradigm (i.e. picture FIG-1 painted by then existing BoK) would be added to expand the BoK.
Everything else might had been ignored, if it can't be rationalized to fit the FIG-1 by bending or twisting. There was enough evidence existed to show that the Sun might be at the center. This lead to proposals such as Tychonic system. Software researchers refusing to investigate irrefutable facts and evidence by using silly or baseless excuses such as software is unique or different. It would be uphill battle to go against huge BoK (comprising tens of thousands of concepts, observations and empirical evidence) accumulated for nearly 50 years.
Based on my experience, a small set of facts or concepts can't achieve gestalt shift, especially researchers are not willing to investigate all the evidence with open mind. I believe, only way to achieve the gestalt shift is by presenting all the evidence and facts for 2 to 3 days, if researchers are willing to discover truth by acquiring necessary BoK of new paradigm and investigating all the evidence.