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 21st 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.