Dear Friends,
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.
Best Regards,
Raju S Chiluvuri
No comments:
Post a Comment