What can you do, if researchers/scientists feel offended by Truth (e.g. few resort to personal attacks/insults, while others try to evade the Truth)?

Dear Friends,

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 21^st 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.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Isn't it absolutely essential for each & every method (used for acquiring useful knowledge) for research must have "self-correcting mechanisms"?

Dear Friends,

            Any thing can be a fact (or proven theory), only as long as (i) it is supported by published repeatable and falsifiable proof backed by demonstrable well documented evidence, and (ii) no one else can falsify the published proof and evidence either by using existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) or by using new demonstrable evidence. The 2nd part is the "self-correcting mechanism", which is essential part of any scientific or engineering research method/paradigm.

            Existing scientific or engineering research paradigm is successful, only because the scientific methods have "self-correcting mechanism". For example, even if a published conclusion, concept, proven theory or fact is flawed, the "self-correcting mechanism" ensure that Truth would prevail sooner or later.

            Unfortunately software researchers disabled the essential "self-correcting mechanism" of scientific method. For example, 2000 years ago researchers disabled "self-correcting mechanism" by insisting that "the Earth is static" is a self-evident fact (hence requires no proof). They disabled the "self-correcting mechanism" by assuming such self-evident fact needs no proof. Likewise, software researchers disabled "self-correcting mechanism"  by  insisting that exiting definitions for components and CBD (Component Based Design) are self-evident facts (hence requires no proof). Today no one even know what is the basis (e.g. axioms, beliefs and reasoning) for the definitions. The definitions can be corrected (if the basis is wrong), if the beliefs and reasons are documented. Since the definitions have no basis, there is no mechanism for validating or correcting the definitions.

            Is it possible to acquire accurate knowledge essential for modern scientific or engineering discipline by selectively disabling or ignoring the "self-correcting mechanism" of the scientific method? How can I convince software researchers that it is wrong the disabling the "self-correcting mechanism"? Many conclusions, concepts or facts added to the BoK for software by disabling or ignoring "self-correcting mechanism".

            This error injected flawed facts (i.e. beliefs considered self-evident facts) nearly 50 years ago and such flawed facts are at the very foundation of software engineering. The existing software engineering paradigm has been evolving for nearly 50 years by relying on such flawed facts. This resulted in the geocentric paradox (a strange altered perception of reality filled with inexplicable retrograde motions or epicycles) in software engineering.

            The "self-correcting mechanism" (e.g. falsifiable facts or documented evidence) make it very simple and non-controversial to invalidate such well documented proof or evidence by finding and demonstrating just a flaw. Saying that "the Sun is at the center" offended common sense and then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Today many experts consider that it is arrogant and disrespectful to question the validity of the so called self-evident facts such as definitions for so called components or CBD (Component Based Design).

            Many experts even questioned my motives as if I committed a heresy or crime. Isn't it essential for any method devised for acquiring knowledge must have "self-correcting-mechanism" (e.g. falsifiable, if the fact or conclusion is flawed) to maintain the quality and accuracy of the knowledge? How do we know the quality and degree of accuracy (e.g. applicability in a given context) of the knowledge, if it is considered heresy to ask for proof. How can we improve non-existent proof, if an when new outlier evidence is discovered to gain deeper insights and wisdom (e.g. degree of accuracy and applicability of knowledge).

            It would be much simpler to invalidate the so called facts, if they are supported by published proofs (e.g. by finding just one or two flaws in the proof). But today only way to expose the error is bringing in complex Kuhnian paradigm shift by invalidating large chunks of existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) of deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm.

            The self-correcting-mechanism is essential for keeping the research efforts in the right path. Isn't it common sense that any effort (e.g. research or investigation) would end up in wrong path as soon as start relying on flawed fact or assumption? The self-correcting-mechanism (e.g. falsifiable facts) of scientific method successfully prevented repeat of kind of mistakes that lead to geocentric paradox. Even mathematics or logic use self-correcting-mechanisms such as maintaining consistency of each of the axiomatic systems  (e.g. axioms would be adjusted to maintain consistency of the system, if anomalies or inconsistencies are discovered in the axiomatic system).

            Except computers science, no one else repeated similar kind of mistake (e.g. relying on unproven beliefs by insisting the belief is self-evident fact - in effect, disabled "self-correcting-mechanism" such as empirical falsification). I cannot find any other example, where any other scientific or engineering discipline committed this kind of mistake. How do we know, if we are going in the right path (or wasting our efforts on a wrong path), if we turn off navigation system (i.e. self-correcting-mechanism) of any method for acquiring knowledge.

            How do you know or make sure, if you are going in the right path? For example, if you want to go east, but how can you be sure you are going east? If you don't have a navigation system (self-correcting-mechanism), you may be going either North of West, but have no way of knowing the mistake for correcting it. If you are going North, can you define the North is East for you by ignoring the reality? Software researchers did exactly that - By defining the nature and properties of so called components and true essence of the CBD without any basis in reality.

            The main purpose of research is nothing but exploring new uncharted territory or frontiers. Is it possible to explore such vast unknown frontiers without using any kind of navigational system (self-correcting-mechanism)? Software researchers turned-off proven navigation system (self-correcting-mechanism) and ended up in the infamous software crisis. Many think I am crazy, if I ask them to use proven navigation system (self-correcting-mechanism).

            Many experts insist computer science is not a real science and software engineering is not a real engineering. They are right. But the reason for computer science is not a real science and software engineering is not real engineering is: research efforts of researchers have been traveling in a wrong path for 45 years.  Any scientific (or engineering) discipline end up a fake scientific (or engineering) discipline, if research efforts end up in a wrong path and have no self-correcting-mechanism. Software researchers can use self-correcting-mechanisms (having proven track record), but refusing to use the self-correcting-mechanisms.

            If my mission is 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 the term "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? That is exactly what happened: The existing definitions for components is created an illusion that software engineering is using components. The CBD for software is defined as using such fake components. Whatever the destination they reach, they call it CBD (without using any mechanisms for validation - by ignoring obvious realities of the CBD). The software researchers disabled (i.e. have been ignoring) all the mechanisms (e.g. empirical falsification, obvious reality, evidence, try to achieve consistent axiomatic system or even common sense) for correcting or validating the definitions for components and CBD (Component Based Design).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Summary and magnitude of Kuhnian paradigm shift (or Gestalt Shift)

            The geocentric paradigm had been evolved for centuries comprising of countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence, which are consistent with each other and together paint a complex picture (i.e. perception) of reality. The FIG-1 illustrates the picture painted by the BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for over 1600 years up until 16^th century, where the BoK flied with countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence (e.g. retrograde motions in FIG-2 and epicycles in FIG-3) in the webpage http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

The existing Heliocentric paradigm painted a radically different picture (i.e. perception) of the reality by using countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence. The FIG-4 illustrates the picture painted by the BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated since 16^th century. Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for Heliocentric paradigm consistent with each other and also consistent with the picture painted in the FIG-4. Likewise, Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for Geocentric paradigm consistent with each other and also consistent with the picture in the FIG-1.

Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for one paradigm contradicts many of the concepts, observations or empirical evidences in the BoK for another paradigm. In other words, each concept or observation in geocentric paradigm is consistent with the root axiom (i.e. the Earth is at the center), but inconsistent (or in contradiction) with any other axiom (e.g. the Sun is at the center) and BoK acquired by relying the other axiom.

            The axiom at the root of geocentric paradigm is "the Earth is static (at the center)". That is, the geocentric paradigm evolved for centuries by relying on a flawed belief that "the Earth is static" (by concluding that the belief is a self-evident fact). Later it was discovered that the Sun is at the center. The seed axiom at the root of existing heliocentric paradigm is "the Earth is static (at the center)". The existing heliocentric paradigm is supported by a BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising of many concepts, observations and empirical evidence, which are discovered or acquired by relying on seed axiom "the Sun is at center".

            The BoK for each paradigm comprises of concepts, observations or empirical evidences that are consistent with each other and also consistent with the root or seed axioms of respective paradigms (since each of the items in the BoK had been created by relying on the seed or root axioms). In other words, each paradigm is supported by a BoK (comprises of items such as concepts, observations or empirical evidences), where each of the items is created or acquired by relying on seed axioms at the root of respective paradigms. Both paradigms paint radically different picture (or perception) of realities, where BoK of each paradigm is consistent with respective seed axioms (or goals).

            The existing software engineering paradigm in general and CBSE/CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) in particular has been evolving for decades by relying on a flawed belief that: the CBSE is building software by using software parts (i.e. so called software components) such as reusable and/or standardized software parts (e.g. so called component libraries or models). The existing CBSE paradigm supported by a BoK (comprising countless items such as concepts, observations or empirical evidences), where the items are consistent with each other and all of the items together paints a picture (i.e. perception) of reality. This existing perception of reality for CBD for software products is radically different from the reality we know about the CBD of physical products in general, and particularly the component based design and development or engineering of one-of-a-kind physical products such as an experimental spacecraft or pre-production working models (that are fully-tested prototype and ready for mass production) of next-generation jet-fighters.

            I used scientific methods for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) that comprises of many concepts, observations or empirical evidences for painting the picture of reality of the CBD of physical components. I also made necessary inventions for achieving the reality for the software products. Each of our concept, observation or empirical evidence is consistent with the reality of the CBD of physical products, but unfortunately each of them can be contradicted by dozens of concepts, observations or empirical evidences in the BoK of existing CBSE paradigm. Of course, dozens of items in the BoK for geocentric paradigm contradicted each item in the BoK for heliocentric paradigm. This kind of paradigm shift can't be achieved by writing a paper or 45 minutes-presentation of slides. I believe, it is possible to instill enough BoK in 2 to 3 days for new paradigm to prove that the new paradigm paints superior picture of reality, and is far more useful and capable of overcomes the crisis created by the exiting paradigm (rooted in flawed axioms).

            The main difference between normal paradigm shift and Kuhnian paradigm shift: (1) normal paradigm shift creates new BoK, which not necessarily contradicts or invalidate exiting paradigms, and (2) Kuhnian paradigm shift exposes fundamentally flawed paradigm and need to replace the whole BoK (which is filled with flawed concepts and observations) of the old paradigm by a new BoK. In other words, due to an error at the root, researchers end up creating an altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction to the reality.

            The Kuhnian paradigm shift replaces such flawed altered perception of reality by more accurate perception of reality (that puts scientific or engineering progress on right tracks, since the error at the root put the progress in wrong path and ended up in a crisis). Exposing the error opens up vast uncharted opportunities unprecedented advancements. For example, mankind would be in dark ages, if the error at the root of the geocentric paradigm were not yet exposed. Likewise, exposing the error at the root of software engineering leads to unprecedented progress and revolution.

            If any observation or empirical evidence doesn't fit the existing BoK or if it can't be bent or twisted to fit the existing BoK., such observation or empirical evidence would be thrown out or ignored by using silly or baseless excuses such as software is unique or different. I am sure, philosophers did the same thing up until 500 years ago. Only observation or empirical evidence that can be bent or twisted to fit the geocentric paradigm (i.e. picture FIG-1 painted by then existing BoK) would be added to expand the BoK.

            Everything else might had been ignored, if it can't be rationalized to fit the FIG-1 by bending or twisting. There was enough evidence existed to show that the Sun might be at the center. This lead to proposals such as Tychonic system. Software researchers refusing to investigate irrefutable facts and evidence by using silly or baseless excuses such as software is unique or different. It would be uphill battle to go against huge BoK (comprising tens of thousands of concepts, observations and empirical evidence) accumulated for nearly 50 years.

            Based on my experience,  a small set of facts or concepts can't achieve gestalt shift, especially researchers are not willing to investigate all the evidence with open mind. I believe, only way to achieve the gestalt shift is by presenting all the evidence and facts for 2 to 3 days, if researchers are willing to discover truth by acquiring necessary BoK of new paradigm and investigating all the evidence.

How is it possible to compel researchers to gain basic knowledge (without violating basic scientific rules) to solve certain unsolved problems?

Dear Friends,

            Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could any one draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint a picture of an elephant, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how the elephants looks like?

            How could any one possibly say whether it is possible or not to invent real CBD for software, without ever even trying to know what is the nature/essence of the CBD (Component Based Design)? No software researcher in the world knows (e.g. can be able to provide even right general rough description) what is the true essence of the CBD of Physical Products, particularly the design and development of one of a kind physical products such as experimental spacecraft or pre-production fully tested final working models of next generation jet-fighters. Any one can prove me wrong by providing accurate description for real CBD.

            Don't we need to have rough or basic knowledge about nature and essential properties of physical components necessary for the CBD of physical products, if we want to paint (i.e. invent) equivalent virtual components (having the essential properties) necessary for the CBD of virtual software products in cyberspace. Today software experts (i.e. of CBSD/CBSE) can't even recognize, even if a bunch of pictures of elephants (i.e. real-software-components) fall in their lap. Even if you show real-software-components and real CBSD, the so called CBSD/CBSE experts think you are crazy and steadfastly snub the facts/reality. I have been trying to demonstrate real-software-components and CBD for software for years, but not able to make any progress. Most of the software researchers deny even obvious facts, observations and evidence.

            Software researchers have been painting the nature and reality of so called software components and CBD (Component Based Design) for software products for about 45 years, without making any effort to know what is nature and essential aspects of CBD and essential properties of components. This completely altered their perception of reality, which is preventing them to recognize obvious reality or accept simple evidence or obvious facts.

            The scientific methods have proven track-record to systematically gather, investigate and analyze evidence to discover nature and essential properties of any kind of physical beings/things. The nature & essential properties of physical components are objective facts, which can be discovered by employing scientific methods. Scientific methods have proven track-record for discovering essential properties of not only far more complex physical things (e.g. viruses, bacteria, light, particles such as electrons) but also uniquely and universally shared properties by far more diverse species/beings (e.g. animals, plants or chemicals).

            If the Sun is at the center, believing that any planet other than sun at the center and relying on such flawed axiom for expanding body of knowledge (e.g. to comprehend the reality) lead to a crisis (filled with anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions such as inexplicable retrograde motions and epicycles). Any scientific or engineering discipline and research efforts end up in wrong path, if it starts relying on flawed axioms (e.g. such axiomatic beliefs by assuming them to be self-evident facts). The discipline ends up in crisis (e.g. paradoxical paradigm or altered perception of reality and conventional wisdom), if the research efforts continue in the wrong path for prolonged time without realizing such mistake.

            Likewise, if the essential properties of components are {R, S}, it is an error to define properties of components any thing other than the properties {R, S}. Software engineering ends up in a crisis (e.g. altered perception), if research efforts try to expand body of knowledge by relying on such flawed properties for prolonged period. It is a violation of basic rules or methods of mathematics (or logic) to rely on flawed axioms, even computer science was to be a sub-domain of mathematics alone. Using flawed axioms leads to inconsistent axiomatic system (having contradictions), which is a classic example of a crisis.

            The infamous software crisis would be a thing of past, even if few software researchers spend just few days (by employing proven scientific methods without violating processes and principles) to discover objective facts and reality such as what is the true essence of ideal CBD for the physical products and the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered, it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components havening the essential properties.

            Many software researchers react as if I asked them to leave their beloved religion and join another religion, if I ask him to just investigate obvious evidence and observations using proven scientific methods to discover the truth and reality about ideal CBD. I am only requesting not to commit heresy by violating basic religious tenets of our beloved religion (i.e. of advancing science & technology).

            The purpose of basic research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which doesn't necessarily mean discovering only absolute Truths, but also getting closer and closer to the absolute Truths, without violating basic religious tenets (i.e. widely accepted and proven scientific processes and principles). Itis a heresy to violate basic scientific processes and principles, because violating basic scientific processes and principles diverts research effort into a wrong path and ends up in a crisis (i.e. a paradoxical paradigm and altered perception of reality), if research effort continues in the wrong path for long enough time.

            Even a high school kid should not have problem drawing a rough picture certainly resembling an elephant (without any ambiguity), if he has seen the pictures of the elephants or if he has basic knowledge about the elephants. On the other hand, even the best painter (i.e. software expert) can’t draw a picture (i.e. provide even rough description) that even remotely resembles an elephant (i.e. CBD), if has no clue what the elephants looks like (i.e. the CBD). Today software researchers have no clue what is the nature and aspects of CBD to even roughly describe the true nature or essential aspects of the CBD.

How can I convenience software researchers that it is essential to gain basic knowledge using scientific methods having proven track record for acquiring certain kinds of necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) to solve certain software problems that are not yet solved. The problems such as real CBD for software and real Artificial-Inelegance (that are unsolved for a long time) could not be solved withoutsuch BoK, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods (withoutviolating basic scientific principles and processes).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Is it heresy to request software scientists to not violate basic well established scientific processes, principles & proven rules?

 Dear Friends,

Trying to advance any scientific or technological discipline by relying on unproven belief (even if the belief is perceived to be a self-evident truth), is a well-established violation of scientific processes, principles or rules. Software researchers have been trying to advance CBSD (Component Based Software Design) for 50 years by relying on such unproven beliefs, myths or fantasy. That is, existing flawed CBSD paradigm is rooted in unproven beliefs (that were perceived to be self-evident facts 50 years ago) and has been evolving for 50 years, without knowing or realizing the huge violation of basic scientific processes, principles or rules. That is, existing CBSD paradox (i.e. flawed of perception of altered reality) is result of over 45 years of passionate hard work and efforts of tens of thousands of researchers at any time.

Any scientific or technological research diverts into a wrong path (away from right path), as soon as it relies on a flawed belief (e.g. by erroneously assuming it to be an accurate fact). The well-established scientific principles and process forbids any real scientist from ever relying on a belief (e.g. an assumption), except for theoretical experimentation and exploration to see if the path leads a useful discovery. Hence it is absolutely essential to document any belief (that the belief is just an assumption, that is not yet proven), until the belief is proven to be a fact beyond any doubt.

If and when the belief is proven to be a demonstrable and repeatable fact, the proof must be clearly documented, so that the proof can be independently validated and could be falsified, if the fact is flawed. Anything that is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt must be treated and clearly documented as a belief. No belief can be treated as a fact until the proof is provided openly and independently validated. The proof must be in open domain for anyone to validate or to falsify. Such proven belief may be considered as a fact only as long as the proof cannot be falsified by anyone.

Most of the definitions and/or concepts at the root of existing CBSD paradigm are made out of thin air, based on wishful thinking and pure fantasy, such as, building software products by assembling COTS (Commercially Of The Shelf) components from third party component vendors, as computer hardware engineers design and build computers by using standardised reusable ICs (e.g. CPU or DRAM) and other parts such as Hard Drive, CD-player or network-card etc. It is a pure fantasy and fiction, in light of reality and design of any other physical products (e.g. cars or airplanes), which can’t be competitively differentiated by using software OS and applications: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html

The researchers violated the basic scientific principles and rules by relying on beliefs. If they considered that the beliefs are facts, they violated the scientific process and principles by not documenting the proof, so that others can validate the proof independently. Also allows the future generations to falsify the proof, if and when new discoveries or technological advancements make it possible to invalidate the proof. In real science, it is impossible to find any widely accepted fact having no proof. That is, it is not a real science, if it relies on unproven belief, which were considered to be a fact (without having well documented proof, which is open for independent validation). Anyone who can’t understand this very simple reasoning or basic scientific principles or processes is not a real scientist. It is not wrong to rely on beliefs, but it is violation of scientific process to not clearly documenting the beliefs as assumptions.

I am sure any good collage student of science can understand this logic. I have no idea, why the most brilliant computer scientists have problem accepting these facts and logic. Instead they feel that it is a heresy, if I mention that it is wrong violate such basic well established scientific processes, principles and proven rules.

Isn’t it the stupidest violation in history of science, many times stupider than the flawed belief that was lead to the geocentric paradigm? It is not hard to understand why mankind few 1000 years ago concluded that “the Earth is static” is a fact. But how any one can possible understand the foolish definitions at the root of CBSD such as reusable and/or standardised parts are components, and using such fake components is CBSD.

As per these foolish definitions, parts equivalent to highly standardised and reusable ingredient parts such as 53 grade cement, TMT steal, paint, plastic, metals, silicon wafers or alloys are components (and using them to build houses is CBD). On the other hand, software parts equivalent to the highly customised components (that are neither reusable nor standardised) used in designing and building one-of-a-kind physical products (e.g. prototype of a next generation jet-fighter or experimental spacecraft) are not components, and using such parts is not CBD. Isn’t it these beliefs (that are at the root of existing CBSD paradigm) many times more foolish than the 2000 years old belief “the Earth is static”?

The belief “the Earth is static” evolved for 1000 years into a complex altered perception of reality depicted by FIG-1 – doesn’t it look like a huge spaghetti code? The FIG-4 depicts the exiting perception of reality described by Kepler’s laws – So simple and elegant (compared to FIG-1): http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html.

Existing CBSD paradigm evolving for nearly 50 years by relying of flawed beliefs and it looks 10 times uglier than the FIG-1. When the flaw at the root of existing CBSD is exposed by using facts, real CBD for software will be simple and elegant as illustrated by FIG-2 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html and FIG-4 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

I am searching for real scientists. Are there any real scientists doing research in computer science or software engineering?

Dear Friends,

           The existing CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is rooted in beliefs, which I can prove are flawed. Software researchers violated basic scientific rules and principles 50 years ago by relying on untested beliefs, this resulted in software crisis. I can’t find even a single real scientist who understands basic scientific principles and relying on untested beliefs is gross violation of the scientific principles.

In the history of science, I could find only one other example, where a scientific discipline relied on a belief (i.e. the earth is static) and evolved into a complex geocentric paradoxical paradigm, which altered perception of reality and ended up in very costly scientific crisis. Can anyone name any example other than existing CBSD paradigm, which is rooted in beliefs?

Can anyone of you name any other untested and unproven belief in any other scientific discipline, except the untested & unproven belief (i.e. the Earth is static) that eventually resulted in complex geocentric paradox (an altered perception of reality). No other research community of any real scientific discipline ever relied or accepted relying on untested and unproven belief for advancing any other scientific discipline.

It is beyond my comprehension, why none of the software researcher feels such gross violation (i.e. relying on an unproven belief) is a problem. Why it is hard to understand this simple fact/rule: Relying on flawed belief/fact diverts research efforts into a wrong path? In history of science, it is impossible to find any exception to this basic scientific rule. If brute force (i.e. research effort) is employed to advance the discipline, it ends up in crisis (since nothing useful could possibly exist in such a wrong path).

Any research effort to advance a scientific or engineering discipline diverts into a wrong path (that certainly leads to a crisis), as soon as it started relying on flawed belief/fact. There is no exception to this rule. How anyone possibly assume blindly that computer science (or software engineering) could be an exception to such a basic rule or principle? After software engineering ended up in crisis, many experts (e.g. Dr. Brook’s “No Silver Bullet”) try to rationalize that it is the nature of software engineering by using meticulous observations of retrograde motions and elaborate mapping of epicycles, which are only deceptions of fundamentally altered perception of reality.

Anyone can prove me wrong by showing even a single exception to this rule: It is a nature of any real science to end up in a wrong path, if researchers rely on beliefs, if the beliefs are flawed. It is inevitable that the scientific discipline ends up in crisis, if researches blindly employ brute force to advance the discipline. For example, if anyone foolishly believes that he can fly and jumps-off 900 feet tall cliff or building, can he avoid the bad consequences of his foolish belief (i.e. if he can’t fly)?

Relying on untested beliefs is a gross violation of scientific rules and principles. It is impossible to avoid consequences (when any scientific discipline makes such huge foolish mistake). Hence software have been suffering the consequences for at least 3 decades (at a cost of trillions of dollars). There is no other way to overcome the crisis (to prevent wasting trillions more), except exposing the flawed beliefs that diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The existing CBSD paradigm (an altered perception of reality) is the result of tens of thousands of software researchers investing their research efforts for decades without realizing that they are pushing it in a wrong path.

            Prove me wrong by showing an exception to this very basic scientific rule in the history of science: “Relying on flawed a belief” is not only a blunder but also a violation of basic scientific principle. Please don’t give me examples of beliefs, that later turned out to be right (e.g. by luck). I am only talking about the beliefs that are flawed.

In case of CBSD, I can prove that the beliefs are flawed, if any researcher is willing to see the evidence. If he can’t understand this simple logic, is he a real scientist? No one can deny simple scientific rules or principles. I don’t know how to prove obvious facts. Let me quote Galileo (last person struggled to expose such flawed belief): "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.". I couldn’t find any other examples of such flawed beliefs (at the root of any scientific discipline) to learn from other’s experiences, which could be helpful in my struggle to expose the flawed beliefs.

            The research community used excuses such as: If the Earth is moving, why the Moon is not left behind (or how could Moon follow)? They refuse to see the evidence (e.g. Galileo’s Moons), when Galileo offered to show proof using advanced telescope invented by Galileo. The best way to expose this kind of flawed beliefs is investigating physical evidence. I can show equivalent physical evidence: many real software components & CBD applications built by assembling the real software components.

            Almost every software scientist or researcher readily admit that existing CBSD is rooted in unproven beliefs, but they continue to deny any violation of fundamental scientific principles. They pretend to be scientists. How could they be real scientists without even knowing that it is an error to violate basic scientific principles? This kind of thing never happened in the history of mankind, not even in the dark ages.

It may be understandable, if someone makes a mistake in a multiplication (e.g. 17 * 29 = 487). How could anyone continue to deny the mistake, even after the error is clearly pointed out? How could anyone insist that it is not a wrong answer, while claiming to be an expert in mathematics?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

How and/or where can I find “real scientists”, who earned deserving Ph.D and/or doing “real” research in computer science or software engineering?

I am disparately searching for real scientists (doing research in computer science everywhere, but not able to find. I greatly appreciate, if anyone can direct me where I can find real scientist (who can help me in this noble effort): I need help in creating awareness by providing irrefutable proof that computer science is not a real science because it violates proven and well established scientific processes, principles and breaks accepted scientific rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

Any scientific discipline having unsubstantiated beliefs at its core can’t be real science, even if the beliefs (that are not supported by any proof) are widely accepted as self-evident truths. No scientist can be a real scientist who blindly defends such known unsubstantiated beliefs by refusing to investigate facts that can expose the flaw in such known unsubstantiated beliefs even when the facts are published openly.

Most of the software researchers and scientists admit that many concepts and definitions for software components and CBSD are rooted in beliefs (but not rooted in facts). If anyone disagrees, he/she must direct me where I can find evidence to prove that they are facts (but not beliefs). With all due respect, computer science needs real scientists for transforming it into real science. For example, existing definitions for software components and CBSD (Component Based Software Design) are rooted in 50 years old unsubstantiated beliefs and myths such as software is unique and/or different and it is impossible to achieve real CBSD that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products, without ever even making any attempt to know what is the nature and true essence of the CBD (Component Based Design) of large physical products: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

It is impossible to practice real COP (Component Oriented Programming) essential for achieving real CBSD, if we can’t create real-software-components. Today no other existing GUI technology is capable of creating real software components, so I have to invent such GUI technologies for creating real software components: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

It may be very hard to spot such error slipped through 50 years ago and hidden undetected for many decades. If the error is spotted (may be by chance) and pointed out, is it hard to confirm the error and all the evidence is published openly backed by tangible and repeatable experimental results? I am more than happy to provide any evidence and repeatable results anyone needs to expose these errors. We created many GUI applications by employing COP using our GUI technologies and help anyone in creating GUI application by employing COP using our GUI technologies.

I contacted countless respected research organizations and researchers many times in the past for help in my effort to expose the flawed beliefs. Unfortunately many experts feel offended for questioning the validity of such belief/myths. Most of them admitted that the beliefs have never been validated. Can a real scientist be feel offended, if I point out that a belief might be flawed? Are you a real scientist, if you feel offended for questioning an untested belief? If fact, it must be shocking to a real scientist that such an untested belief is at the root of CBSD. All the effort invested for past few decades to discover retrograde motions and epicycles end up wasted.

Exposing the flawed beliefs certainly leads to transforming computer science into real science and software engineering into real engineering. No scientific discipline can be real science as long as it has such known beliefs (that are flawed) at its core. Real science must be rooted in irrefutable facts and reality, rather than rooted in unsubstantiated beliefs/myths (postulated out of thin air in the dark ages, when the scientific discipline is in its infancy). I greatly appreciate, if anyone can direct me where and/or how I can find real scientist, who could help me in this noble effort to expose the flawed myths/beliefs for transforming computer science into real science.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri