Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists feel repugnant when requested to not violate the “scientific method” for acquire theoretical knowledge?

Dear Friends,

Isn’t it fraud (if not crime) against scientific and technological progress, if scientists/researchers blatantly violate well established and proven “scientific method”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method to acquire and include new knowledge in the theoretical foundation of any discipline for expanding its BoK (Body of Knowledge). Certain basic concepts in the BoK for software are nothing more than fiction rooted in wishful thinking. Relying on such flawed concepts or knowledge for technological advancement is violation of basic logic and even common sense.

The purpose of scientific research is discovering new pieces of knowledge (e.g. facts, concepts or theories that can’t be falsified by using existing knowledge) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge by adding the new knowledge to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for the scientific discipline). Each piece of knowledge in the BoK must be supported by falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify using exciting evidence or knowledge); and must be removed from the BoK, if and when new evidence can falsify the proof. The purpose of engineering or technological research is relying on the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation acquired by using scientific method) for either inventing new things or innovation for improving existing inventions).

Any knowledge added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating the scientific method might be invalid and corrupted. Any new pieces of knowledge gained by relying such invalid or corrupted knowledge will be corrupted. Such BoK (theoretical foundation) would insidiously dangerous for engineering research. It is impossible to make any useful invention or innovation by relying on such corrupted knowledge. Most inventions are made by rely on multiple pieces of knowledge in the BoK. It is very unlikely for any technological research to be successful, even if some of the pieces of knowledge is corrupted. For example, is it possible to invent computer chips, by being clueless about the nature of electrons? Software researchers trying to invent CBD for software by being clueless about natures/properties of the CBD and components.

How progress of any scientific discipline research derailed (ends up in crisis): If research community makes a mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. This was exactly what had happened in case of geocentric paradigm for about 1500 years, when researchers made a mistake by assuming that the Earth is static 2000 years ago. Exactly similar mistake was repeated nearly 50 years ago by researchers of computers science (software): By defining that any reusable and/or standardized software parts are components for software products (without giving any consideration to reality/fact, but based on wishful thinking/fiction). The researchers also defined that the objective of the CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components.

The assumption made 2000 years ago that “the Earth is static” was an error. Relying on the error led research efforts in a wrong path for next 1500 years. This resulted in fundamentally altered perception reality, so much so, the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) was perceived to be repugnant/heresy. The researchers in 17^th century had to make huge sacrifices to expose this error. To prove that it was an error, they had to find Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) and prove the Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the scientific knowledge by overcoming the scientific crisis. Copernicus discovered that “the Sun is at the centre”, which eventual proven (e.g. by Kepler, Galileo and Newton) to be a fact. Exposing the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre, which initially perceived to be repugnant/heresy) put the research efforts in the right path, which resulted in the greatest scientific revolution in the history.

Mankind’s scientific knowledge would still be in crisis, if that error were not yet exposed. The experience and suffering endured by 17^th century scientists/researchers to expose the error to overcome the scientific crisis helped them formalize and formulate “scientific method”, particularly to avoid similar kind of foolish mistake (i.e. relying on unproven assumptions that are rooted in myths or wishful thinking). Except computer science, no other modern scientific discipline violated the “scientific method”.

Except the researchers of computer science, so far no other scientific discipline repeated similar kind of foolish error. The errors are: (1) Assumption made nearly 50 years ago that, reusable and/or standardized software parts are components (which is in clear contradiction to reality/fact we know about physical components – Most physical components are custom designed to meet unique needs of its target product) and (2) blindly defining CBSD (CBD for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components. Such untested errors led the research efforts in a wrong path and resulted in fundamentally altered perception of reality (and infamous software crisis), so much so, our discoveries of Truth perceived to be heresy and repugnant.

I have been enduring humiliating insults, snubs and personal attacks, if I try to expose this error by using Truth: I discovered Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the scientific knowledge and for overcoming the scientific crisis. I used the “scientific method” to discover that the reality for CBD of any given product: The reality for CBD can be broadly summarized as implementing about 90% of the features and functionality in un-pluggable/re-pluggable components, which are custom designed to satisfy unique need of the given product, where the replaceable component are optimal sized parts that can be easily un-pluggable (e.g. for redesign it individually) and re-pluggable (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product).

I realized that, I must invent right kind of software component that are capable of enabling real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (i.e. CBD for Software Products), where real CBSD is implementing over 90% of the features and functionality (i.e. code) in replaceable software components, which can be easily un-plugged (e.g. for redesign it individually free from spaghetti code) and re-plugged (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product). I used “scientific method” to discover the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every physically component in the world. This knowledge of reality (acquired by using “scientific method”) allowed me to experiment for many years to invent real software components (having the necessary essential properties) for achieving real-CBSD.

Anyone can make these discoveries on their own by employing “scientific methods”. Unfortunately, most experts feel, it is repugnant, if I request them to use “scientific methods” for discovering the Truth/facts by investigating the objective reality about the nature and essence of the CBD of physical products and nature and properties that are essential for physical components to achieve real CBD. Is it heresy or repugnant: Asking to gain valid knowledge by using proven “scientific methods”?

What is real Science? What are the basic requirement for any discipline to be a real science? Ans: Using “scientific methods” for investigating evidence and/or conduct experiments to discover new pieces or parts of knowledge (i.e. facts, concepts or theories that can’t be falsified) for expanding the BoK. How any scientific discipline could end-up a fake science? Obvious answer is: Expanding its BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by adding more and more new pieces or parts of knowledge created by violating the “scientific method”. The “scientific method” requires that, each piece of knowledge added to the BoK must be supported by a falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify by using existing knowledge); and the piece of the knowledge must be deleted from the BoK, if and when new evidence surfaces that can falsify the proof.

Computer Science has been adding invalid or corrupted knowledge by violating the “scientific methods”. Many parts of the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for software) were never supported by any proof and can be easily falsified. Hence computer science ended up being a fake science. How is it possible to transform a fake science into a real science? Just follow the “scientific methods” to find and falsify pieces or parts of knowledge created by violating the basic “scientific methods” and replace each of them with pieces or parts of knowledge created by employing “scientific methods” (if and when possible). Also remove each piece of the knowledge (that can’t be replaced), if it is not possible to support by irrefutable proof and evidence.

How any scientific discipline ends up in a crisis/paradox: If research community makes a mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. No exception to this simple rule. This was exactly what happened in case of geocentric paradox. This was exactly what happened 50 years ago, when scientists set the goal for CBSE is building applications by assembling reusable components. Isn’t it obvious that the assumption is flawed? This assumption was never even tested. The 17^th century researchers (e.g. Galileo and Descartes) formulated the scientific method to prevent this kind of error at any cost: Investing research efforts by blindly relying on unproven and untested myths for expanding the BoK. Except software researchers, no one else committed this kind of monumental mistake since 17^th century.

The truth (The Sun is at centre) perceived to be repugnant/heresy in the dark ages. Scientists explained the persecution of Truth by saying: It was dark ages for science and insisting that we learned valuable lessons from the painful experience, and insist that great philosophers of 17^th century formalized “Scientific Method” for preventing such mistake again, which has been evolving ever since and matured. What excuse software scientist could find to explain repeat of exactly similar kind of mistake in the 21^st century, except admitting gross negligence, pure incompetence, scandalous or even fraud? Are we still in the dark age for science? I can’t understand why scientists in the 21^st century consider that it is heresy and/or repugnant (resorting to humiliating snubbing or personal attacks), when requested to use “scientific method” to investigate the objective reality to discover facts/Truth?

There is no better tool than “scientific method” to investigate the objective reality for discovering facts/Truth? No real scientist can refute these scientific methods, even if they perceive our discoveries to be repugnant initially. Any researcher denies these facts and scientific method is certainly incompetent and may be even a fraud. Except software researchers, no other scientist or scientific discipline violate scientific method knowingly and so blatantly/foolishly. Many software researchers blindly insist that it is impossible to fallow scientific method. They are absolutely wrong. We made our revolutionary discoveries of Truth/facts by strictly following the scientific method. We are only asking the software researchers to strictly follow the scientific method, just like researchers of any other discipline in the world. Isn’t it a shame and scandal, if any scientist feels that, asking him to not violate the proven scientific method is repugnant? Our scientific discoveries will transform computer science into a real science and our inventions transform software engineering into real engineering.

Toady computer science is a fake science because it has been blatantly violating scientific method. No discipline can be a real science, if it has been acquiring knowledge (for expanding its BoK) by violating scientific method. There are no exceptions to this universal rule. The theoretical foundation (i.e. BoK) created by researchers of computers science for inventing CBSD (or AI) can’t be an exception to this rule. The knowledge created and added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating scientific methods are invalid. No useful technological inventions can be made by relying on such invalid or corrupted knowledge.

The discovery that “the Sun is at the centre” was perceived to be repugnant. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if that error were not yet exposed. It is impossible to make any meaningful progress, if the BoK was filled with such corrupted knowledge. Today my discoveries (made by strictly following scientific process) are perceived to be repugnant. But software researchers and industry (i) have no choice but to follow the scientific method for acquiring necessary knowledge (that is essential for addressing many unsolved problems in software) and (ii) must rely only on the discoveries made by strictly following the scientific methods.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

How to expose a shocking scandal that has been plaguing computer science?

Dear Friends,

Summary of the Scandal: It is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved computer science (software) problems without expanding the theoretical foundation by acquiring certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge. Example for unsolved problems include real-CBD (Component Based Design) or real-AI (Artificial Intelligence). Certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge (to address certain unsolved problems) can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software researchers have been insisting that computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics and refusing to use any other methods (except mathematics) for acquiring knowledge for expanding the theoretical foundation in order to facilitate software inventions for solving any unsolved problems.

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 anyone 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 (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how it works or looks like? For example, a painter could say whether he can pain XYZ or not, only after seeing XYZ. The software researchers have no clue what is XYZ (e.g. real CBD), but insist it is impossible to invent XYZ (e.g. real-CBD for software).  

Without ever even trying, how can anyone insist that knowledge acquired by using scientific methods is useless for addressing such unsolved problems? Isn’t it (i.e. refusing to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge) shocking and scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved problems? I can prove that it is a trivial task to invent solutions for few unsolved problems, if such missing pieces of knowledge is acquired by using scientific methods.

Kindly allow me to illustrate this by using an example: For example, the infamous software crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components.

The reason for the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models of next generation jet-fighters.

The essential properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods), it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable proof backed by evidence.

This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved problems of software. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).

The scientific methods can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits on an integrated circuits today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) and compare that to number of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.

Even a honey-bee can manoeuvre many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand, scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such knowledge.

The research effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing real software components.

I have made such simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is openly provided in my web-site http://real-software-components.com and in my ResearchGate account. We (i.e. http://pioneer-soft.com) built first and only GUI-platform in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved problems.

I don’t have the resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific methods).

To invent solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI, which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions. Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?

Many software researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such inventions): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics

Please kindly remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering BoK) can withstand even the most rigorous validation and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation. But how such truth/reality can prevail if every respected researcher tries to cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by refusing to see the evidence)?

How can we emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? Mathematics is incapable of providing such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only by using scientific methods. No painter can paint XYZ (i.e. rea-CBD), if he has no clues how XYZ (or real-CBD) looks like. Today no software expert can provide accurate summary or realistic description for real CBD. Isn’t a scandal?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

What can you do, if researchers/scientists feel offended by Truth (e.g. few resort to personal attacks/insults, while others try to evade the Truth)?

Dear Friends,

Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering Body of Knowledge) can withstand even the most rigorous validation and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation. But how such truth/reality can prevail if everyone tries to cover-up (e.g. ignores proof, evidence or evade basic investigation) by using every possible excuse (or even resort personal attacks or insults)?

Discoveries of Galileo Galilee faced huge resistance such as: "I am not going to look through your "telescope", as you call it, because I know the Earth is static (or flat) ... I am not a fool, how dare you to insult my intelligence?". Likewise, most experts feel we are insulting their intelligence, if we say purpose of CBD (Component Based Design) is not "reuse". Today no one else even knows the objective reality about: "what is true essence and power of CBD". Many experts feel insulted, if we try to expose the Truth.

            Every other modern scientific, logic or engineering discipline is employing proven mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms, theories or beliefs. In hard sciences, we have objective reality to continuously measure and correct each of the theories and facts in the BoK (Body of Knowledge), where the BoK provides theoretical or scientific foundation for engineering researchers for making useful inventions. In mathematics/logic, the mathematical methods leads to a glaring contradiction (e.g. such as 1 = 0), if a theory or axiom is wrong. In computer science, such mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms or beliefs have been ignored.

Software researchers can’t blindly make up definitions or theories for including in BoK (by insisting such flawed theories or beliefs are self-evident facts): If my mission is to reach Asia from San Francisco, is it OK to name (or define) the direction I am going is West (even if I am sailing from San Francisco to South Pole)? Can I define whatever direction I am going is "West" to create an illusion that I am going West. After reaching the South Pole, can I declare that my mission to reach Asia is successful by defining the place I reached is Asia? If I were given a mission to visit the Mars, can I claim that I visited the Mars by defining Sahara desert is the Mars and visiting the Sahara desert?

That is exactly what software researchers have been doing with impunity: The existing definitions for components have been creating an illusion that software engineering is using components. The CBD for software is defined as using such fake components. Whatever kind of software parts researchers feel useful is defined as a kind of software components, without any basis in logic, reasoning or consideration to reality/fact. Whatever the destination such fake components lead to is called a kind of CBD for software.

The above approach for acquiring theoretical knowledge for BoK for software engineering defies even common scene. How can it be it a science? How can it be a mathematics/logic (e.g. consistent axiomatic system)? How can it be engineering? Isn’t it a fraud (or at last monumental sloppiness/ignorance)? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis

Proven mechanisms for detecting flawed axioms, theories, hypothesis or beliefs are absolutely essential for any method for acquiring useful knowledge. No knowledge is useful, if it is invalid/wrong and often insidiously harmful, if it is flawed. Any scientific, logic or engineering discipline can’t afford to foolishly throw caution (or even basic common sense) to the winds in pursuit of fool’s errand by relying on such insidious flawed knowledge. Effective mechanisms are essential for not only to validate/detect any flawed theories (or axioms) but also continuously refining each proven theory/fact in the BoK based on new evidence, for example, to explain new anomalies (if and when discovered) or based on new context (e.g. if and when effects of obscure or rare outlier events are discovered).

Unfortunately many experts feel offended by the Truth (i.e. objective realty about the CBD of physical components), which offers very effective method for continuous validation and correction. When I try to present Truth/reality backed by proven objective methods for validation and detecting anomalies/outliers for continuous refinement, we are facing huge resistance. Many of them say: "I won’t listen to your pseudo philosophy/CBD junk. Look at my LinkedIn (or RG) profile. I have been using software components for decades and I am a famous expert on CBSD/CBSE. You are a fool. How dare you to insult my intelligence?"

If any researcher or scientist disagrees with my discovery backed by facts and evidence, he can and must counter my facts and evidence by using his facts and evidence, rather than resorting to insults and/or quoting his credentials. I can’t believe renowned software researchers and scientist in the 21^st century reacting not much differently from the 16th century philosophers in the dark ages. Others pretend to be polite by offering patronizing or condescending suggestions to evade their sacred duty to investigating the Truth. Such evasive tactics would be frustrating to anyone struggling for many years to expose such Truth, especially after listening to thousands of such condescending suggestions.

The biggest hurdle to scientific or technological progress is preconceived notions and prejudice, which further complicated by egos, incompetence or arrogance. Famous Quotes by Arthur Schopenhauer (Great 19th Century German Philosopher): “The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.” .  Almost no one can dispute the Truth and reality about the CBD of physical products or physical components, which is in open for any one to see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

Isn’t it the sacred duty of any real scientist or research is pursuit of Truth? How can we deal with such fake scientists or researchers not willing to know the Truth, but pretending to be world famous scientists or researchers? Each school/cult of so called CBSE experts define CBSD (CBD for software) is using software components, where each kind of software components is a kind of software parts either having useful properties (e.g. of their choice such as reuse or standardized) or conforming to one of the so called component-model, which they made-up out of thin air (based on wishful thinking or fantasy 50 years ago) without any basis is reality, fact, logic or even common sense. No mechanism or method ever employed to validate (e.g. to detect flaws or to correct) such core axioms or theories (by believing them to be self-evident facts), which are at the very heart of the BoK for software engineering in general and CBSD in particular.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri