I am sure almost every scientist in the world must agree that: The biggest and most well-documented mistake in the history of science is “relying on a flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) without validating it”. The “scientific method” was formalized and formulated in the 17th century particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost by the very researchers and philosophers who had endured pain, suffering and deep insights gained form the first-hand experience of facing violent resistance in exposing such error (or flawed perception of reality).
Software researchers repeated exactly the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same kind of mistake in the 21st century must be shocking to anyone. Even more shocking is that many software researchers reacting not much different from the ignorant fanatics in the dark ages, who actively supported killing of Giordano Bruno and life imprisonment of Galileo. Even the ignorant fanatics in the 16th and early 17th century may be justified by saying that there was no mature proven “scientific method”.
Answer to this question is objective reality: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system? Relying on the wrong answer (the Earth is static at centre) to this question about 2000 years ago diverted mankind’s research efforts (e.g. for understanding the reality by finding rational explanation) into a wrong path. The research efforts persisted in the wrong path for nearly 1500 years without realizing the error. This resulted in the geocentric paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality.
The “scientific method” was formulated and formalized in the 17th century in the light of pain and suffering endured and insights gained from the first-hand experience of putting the research efforts onto a right path by exposing the error. The “scientific method” was formulated particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost: To prevent researchers form blindly relying on flawed assumptions (e.g. rooted in prejudice, fantasy or myths), which are in clear contradiction to the objective reality.
Researches of computer science (software) repeated this kind of cardinal sin nearly 50 years ago. The answers to these 2 questions are objective realities (1) what is the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/development) for physical products and (2) what is the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. The myths and assumption at the root of the existing CBSD paradox are in clear contradiction to the objective reality (as the flawed belief/myth “the Earth is static” at the root of geocentric paradox was in clear contradiction to the objective reality).
The nature and properties of so called software components and CBSD (CBD for software) were blindly defined (based on fantasy, prejudice and wishful thinking) 50 years ago without any consideration to the objective reality. The research efforts have been persisting in the wrong path for 50 years without realizing the error. This resulted in existing CBSD paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality. A huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising tens of thousands of published papers and thousands of books world over backed by epicycles of software as empirical evidence in support of the geocentric paradox of the software.
No one in the world ever tried to discover objective reality or answers to the above two basic questions, which must be at the root of real-CBSD. Also Most of the researchers are refusing to know the objective reality. Deliberately ignoring the objective reality and facts is widely considered to be unethical and even scientific fraud. Once the facts are in the open or clearly informed, it is a fraud, if any scientist or researcher continue to promote his theories or concepts, by hiding or deliberately ignoring any evidence, facts or objective reality that contradicts his proposed theories or concepts. Any discovery of fact or theory is valid only if it can’t be falsified. So, it is a fraud to promote such fact or theory by hiding or deliberately ignoring contradicting evidence, facts or objective reality.
We discovered the objective reality about the CBD and components backed by evidence and facts. Today it is impossible to deny the objective reality about the CBD and the objective reality about the components. For example, in light of the objective reality (i.e. the Sun is at the centre), isn’t it obvious that geocentric paradox was rooted in fundamentally flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static at the centre)? Likewise, in light of the objective reality about the CBD and components, it is obvious that the exiting BoK (Body of Knowledge), about so called software components and CBSD paradox, is rooted fundamentally flawed assumptions (e.g. prejudice or myths). Existing definitions and perceptions are in clear contradiction to the objective reality.
If you are working with elephants at a Zoo, when any other animal (e.g. pig or rat) is shown to you, would you insist that it is an elephant? Likewise, no one would ever agree that any of the kind software components known today is a component, if he knows objective reality about the physical components (such as nature and essential properties). If you working with horses for months at a racecourse, when any other animal (e.g. cat or rat) is shown to you, would you insist that it is a horse? Likewise, no one would ever agree that any of the kind CBD for Software known today is real-CBD, if he knows the objective reality about the CBD of physical products (such as nature and true essence).
Computer science was in its infancy 50 years ago and many things were unknown, so software researchers made many assumptions based on (their prejudice and wishful thinking) preconceived notions that computer science was a branch of mathematics and cannot be a real science. This became self-fulfilling prophesy by making computer science a fake science, because software researchers (who are predominantly having background in mathematics) have been working under such flawed preconceived notions and biases of mathematicians (e.g. mathematicians are only trained in “” not trained in the “scientific method”).
The geocentric paradox was defended by using observations such as epicycles and retrograde motions, without realizing they were using illegal circular logic. This is what has been happening in the computer science as well. The researchers are using countless epicycles (e.g. tens of thousands published papers and thousands of books in the existing paradoxical BoK) accumulated for past 50 years for defending the flawed myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox. The experiences and observations of epicycles and retrograde motions were real (i.e. anyone could observe by standing on so called static Earth at the centre) but we know what went wrong.
The same thing has been happening in the software. Without realizing that they are using illegal circular logic, many researchers are using the experiences and observations of the existing CBSD paradox (i.e. altered/flawed perception of reality) to justify the myths at the root of the existing CBSD paradox. Many seminal works such as “mythical man month” or “no silver bullet” further strengthen the conformational bias. The software crisis is real in the existing CBSD paradox as the epicycles were real in the geocentric paradox. It is impossible explain the illusion of such epicycles without going to the root cause. But saying “the Sun at centre” was perceived to be heresy and repugnant 500 years ago. Likewise, questioning the validity of myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox are perceived to be repugnant.
Except researchers of computer science (software), no other 21st century researchers of any discipline refuse to know or deliberately ignore objectivity reality. Unfortunately many software researchers chose to rely on such myths, even when facts and objective reality is demonstrated. Software researchers assumed computer science can’t be a real science, so software researchers put no effort to use “scientific method” for acquiring necessary knowledge essential for addressing many problems such as real-CBSD or Real-Artificial-Intelligence. Such problems can’t be solved without discovering objective reality about components, CBD, neurons or neural networks by using “scientific method”.
Raju S Chiluvuri