What is the fundamental difference between the religions and sciences? My understanding is, we can’t question the validity of sacred beliefs in a religion such as existence of the God or basic religious tenets or dogma? It is a heresy to even try to provide counter evidence to any sacred tenant or dogmatic beliefs.
In science (even in pseudo-science), there are no room for sacred tenets. It is huge violation of the scientific method and basic process. It is mandatory requirement to question the validity and/or demand proof for each and every concept (e.g. theory, observation, fact or principle) included in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the scientific discipline. So it is not hard to prove that software is no more than a religion. I was fooled (by many respected software researchers, scientists and experts) and lead to believe that computer science is not a religion.
If it is not a religion, why is it heresy to questioning the validity of unproven and untested beliefs? The same respected scientists (who fooled me to believe that computer science is not a religion) would react as if it is a blasphemy, if I politely request them, if there is any proof to support their dogmatic opinions or sacred beliefs. They react as if it is a blasphemy, if I try to offer counter evidence to certain basic sacred beliefs (e.g. at the root of existing CBSD/CBDE paradox).
Software easily passes the duck test: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck (e.g. has feathers, webbed feet and satisfies many other aspect), then what are the chances that it is not a duck?
I believe, the religious tenets were defined during primeval times by wise men. Instilling the fear of God (heaven or hell) was the best way for improving many good qualities such as spirituality, ethics and morality of mankind. It might be inconceivable for the wise men that it could create so many bloody conflicts. Of course, religion provides lot of comfort and peace of mind in addition to promoting morality and ethics, if it is used or followed as intended.
I am not against religion but I am against promoting religion of computer science (software) as a science. Software can't be a science, if it is rooted in sacred untested primordial 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 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).
The primordial beliefs were incontrovertible for few decades morphing them to be sacred. But the sacred beliefs are no longer valid, since technological advancements can prove the primordial beliefs to be flawed. The primordial beliefs formed during the primeval period can’t be treated as sacred religious tenets. Unfortunately, most software researchers have been insisting that the primordial beliefs formed during primeval times can’t be questioned or disputed by presenting counter evidence. Many experts readily admit that the tenets are beliefs created by unanimous consent of wise men. Experts insist that no proof is necessary for such sacred beliefs defined by unanimous consent of wise men.
Unfortunately, each year tens of thousands of impressionable computer science students and young researchers have been indoctrinated into the religion of software by fooling them that computer science (software) is a science. They have been brainwashed by using experiences or observations of epicycles (result of relying on flawed primordial sacred beliefs) are reality by using many seminal works such as “mythical man month”, “No silver bullet” or “Big Ball of Mud”.
There is no room for opinions in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) of real science. The existing BoK for computer science contains many untested dogmatic beliefs or sacred unproven opinions. I have been struggling for many years to transform computer science into a science by exposing the flawed beliefs. Researchers refusing to investigate evidence and facts to discover reality for replacing the flawed beliefs by proven concepts. Objective reality is perceived to be heresy because it is contradicting the dogmatic tenets (e.g. as the reality “the Sun is at the center” was perceived to be heresy 500 years ago, because the reality contradicted the dogmatic tenet “the Earth is static at the center).
Each and everything must be considered as an assumption (opinion or belief), if it cannot be supported by falsifiable proof (that can’t be falsified by using any known evidence or exiting knowledge). A falsifiable proof doesn’t imply, it is false, but it can be falsified by demonstrating counter evidence, if and when new counter evidence can be found. Existing religion of software can easily be transformed into a scientific discipline, if software researchers act like scientists (e.g. not offended by asking proof for beliefs perceived to be sacred tenets) and open to investigate counter evidence to expose the flawed beliefs.
The is satirical summary of the state of CBSD (Component Based Design for Software), but the fact is that software rooted in primordial sacred beliefs (instead of facts backed by falsifiable proofs) and many experts react as if it is a heresy to question validity or request proof for the sacred beliefs. If any software expert feels that software is not rooted in primordial sacred beliefs (perceived to be incontrovertible), I humbly request him to prove me wrong. Software must be treated as a religion as long as it is rooted in primordial sacred beliefs.
In science, it is violation of basic scientific rules to insist that any untested or unproven belief is a sacred fact. In real science, nothing can be a fact until it is backed by a proof (which can’t be falsified by existing knowledge and evidence). Ignoring or hiding counter-evidence is unethical and immoral. Many software researchers and scientists insist that many unproven primordial beliefs are sacred facts, and either requesting politely for proof or humbly offering counter evidence is perceived to be arrogant or disrespectful. I have been struggling for many years to present counter evidence to expose flawed primordial beliefs.
Raju S Chiluvuri