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