Is there a civilized way for exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21st century scientific discipline?

Dear Friends,

Saying the truth “the Sun is at the centre” 500 years ago offended common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Researchers refuse to see or investigate either evidence in support of heliocentric model or counter evidence that could expose the flawed geocentric paradox. How any lie could ever be exposed (e.g. the lie “the Earth is static at the centre” at the root of the geocentric paradox), if research community refuses to look at evidence (e.g. by perceiving it to be arrogant, disrespectful and uncivilized to question the validity of primordial dogmatic “consensus” of the respected researchers or scientists).

Please kindly recall the Galileo’s famous letter to Kepler in 1610: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

Galileo Galilee’s attempts to demonstrate counter evidence for the geocentric paradox 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 ... I am not a fool, how dare you to insult my intelligence?". Likewise, most experts feel I am insulting their intelligence, if I say purpose or essence of CBD (Component Based Design) is not "reuse". Existing CBSD/CBSE paradox is fundamentally flawed. Today no one else even knows the objective reality about: "what is true essence and power of CBD".

I have been struggling for many years to provide counter evidence to flawed beliefs at the root of the geocentric paradox of software engineering (in general and CBSD/CBSE in particular). The flawed beliefs diverted research efforts in to a wrong path and software researchers have been investing research efforts for 50 years in the wrong path resulted in the infamous software crisis (as the flawed belief “the Earth is static” diverted research into a wrong path 2300 years ago and investing research efforts for 1800 years in the wrong path resulted in geocentric paradox).

I have been struggling for many years to compel software researchers to investigate counter evidence for exposing the flawed beliefs at the root of the software engineering in general and CBSD/CBSE paradox in particular. I tried every method I can think of and so far no civilized method worked. My efforts to expose the Truth are perceived to be arrogant, disrespectful, uncivilized or even heresy.

Could anyone suggest a civilized way to compel software researchers to investigate evidence in support of the heliocentric model of software engineering and counter evidence for the geocentric paradox of software engineering? Is there any legal way that doesn’t involve bribing (i.e. paying handsomely for doing their moral duty of discovering the Truth/facts by investigating evidence) or dragging tax-payer funded research organizations to court to fulfil their moral and ethical obligation of not wasting taxpayer funds on the geocentric paradox of software engineering?

The flawed beliefs at the root of the CBSD paradox resulted in the infamous software crisis, which already cost a trillion dollars to the world economy, and would cost trillions more, if I fail in my effort to expose the root causes for the geocentric paradox of software engineering. I can’t believe the software scientists even in the 21^st century reacting similar to the fanatic scientists in the dark ages.

For example, all the government funded research organizations (e.g. NSF.gov, NIST.gov, NITRD.gov, SEI/CMU or DoD) already wasted many decades and billions of dollars for expanding the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the geocentric paradox of software engineering. Any kind of research efforts in a wrong path is fool’s errand, because mankind’s scientific knowledge (i.e. BoK) would still be stuck in the dark ages, if the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed.

How could any scientist or researcher foolishly insist unproven beliefs or untested opinions are self-evident facts, for example, by refusing to see counter evidence and often resorting to humiliating insults, snubbing or even personal attacks (when politely offer counter evidence that exposes flawed unproven beliefs or untested opinions at the root of the geocentric paradox of software engineering)?

Computer Science can't be a science, if it has many sacred untested beliefs (i.e. dogmatic tenets) and experts feel offended or react as if it is heresy to question the validity of primordial dogmatic tenets created (by “consensus” of wise men) during primeval period of computer science (i.e. between 50 to 60 years ago when Fortran and assembly languages are leading technologies). It was inconceivable to create real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real-CBD for software, which is equivalent to the CBD (Component Based Design) for physical products 50 to 60 years ago (during primeval period of computer science).

Any “consensus”, no matter how elaborate or elegant, is not science. That kind of “consensus” might be justifiable few decades ago, but such “consensus” cannot be treated as inalienable truth/fact for eternity. Such outdated consensus (e.g. beliefs and myths) at the root (i.e. that are very foundation) of any modern scientific discipline must be questioned time to time. If the consensuses are flawed, it leads to scientific crisis and exposing the error results in a Kuhnian paradigm shift.

Is there a civilized way for exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21^st century scientific discipline? How can I keep it civilized, if respected researchers and scientists perceive facts/truth (that contradict flawed “consensus”) are heresy and react uncivilized by resorting to humiliating insults and personal attacks. How can I compel them to act civilized and fulfil their moral and ethical obligations to Truth? Any untested “consensus”, no matter how elaborate or elegant, is not science. Period. Anyone who feels such untested “consensus” as inalienable Truth for eternity and resort to insults must be ashamed to think he is a scientist/researcher.

Best Regards,

Raju