Why many respected scientist feel it is a fraud/scam or crime to request for proof or question the validity of untested dogmatic myth?

Dear Friends,

About 2000 years ago research community erroneously concluded that “the Earth is static”. The research community relied on such error (i.e. dogmatic myth) for understanding the reality, which diverted their research efforts into a wrong path. These research efforts spanning next 1500 years resulted in evolution of a complex geocentric paradox (e.g. fundamentally altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction of the reality) and a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom backed by huge BoK (Body of Knowledge).

Unfortunately saying the Truth “the Sun is at center” 500 years ago perceived to be insulting the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Saying or implying anything that disputed or disagreed with such dogmatic myth “the Earth is static” was perceived to be arrogant, disrespectful or even fraud/scam. Researchers who questioned the myth (e.g. by saying anything that implied that the Earth is moving) were imprisoned or even killed during 16^th and early 17^th century (now we call this period Dark Ages of Science).

It is impossible to put research efforts onto the right path without exposing this error. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the research efforts were not put on the right path by exposing the error. How is it possible to put the research efforts on the right path, if the research community perceives that it is a scam/fraud to say any thing that disputes or disagrees with such dogmatic myth? Of course, many researches and scientists would resort to humiliating insults and personal attacks against anyone, if he/she is doing something that is perceived to be fraud/scam. Computer Science (Software) is still in the dark ages of science, because respected scientists and researchers of computer science (software) learned nothing from such painful history during the dark ages of science.

Unfortunately, software researchers 50 years ago erroneously concluded that the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/Development) for software is building each product by assembling reusable and/or standardized software components from 3^rd party component vendors. They used following analogy to summarize the nature and true essence of CBD: The hardware designers design and build computers by assembling reusable (or COTS – Commercially off the Shelf) components from 3^rd party component venders. Such reusable software parts were even referred to as Software-ICs by many respected researchers and thought leaders.

The researchers relied on such error for achieving equivalent CBD by inventing such so called software components, which diverted their research efforts into a wrong path. Investing research efforts for past 50 years in a wrong path resulted in evolution of a complex software engineering paradox (e.g. fundamentally altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction of the reality we know in the physical world such as CBD of physical products). Today research community refusing to explore any other path, if the proposed path is in contradiction to their flawed perception of reality and their dogmatic myths. In fact, many researchers today even perceive such proposal to be a fraud/scam.

Unfortunately respected researchers of 21^st century are reacting no differently then the researchers in the dark ages of science. Today it is perceived to be arrogant, repugnant or even fraud/scam to say anything that is in contradistinction to their altered perception of reality and dogmatic myths (e.g. large reusable software parts are components, and using such so called software components is CBD). But it is impossible to put research efforts on the right path without exposing the myths. No meaningful progress is possible for achieving real CBD until the research efforts are put on the right path by exposing the error.

The reality and facts about real-CBD, such as implementing over 90% of the features and functionality is custom replaceable components. – This is clear contradiction to the retrograde motions and epicycles of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and CBD paradox exists today. It is impossible to achieve gestalt-shift into new paradigm without contradicting the retrograde motions and epicycles of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom of the existing CBSD paradox. But any attempt to expose the error is perceived to be scam/fraud. Today no one even know what the reality is, and consider that it is fraud/scam, if any one requests them for an opportunity to provide proof for the Reality, since the reality disagrees (e.g. is in clear contradiction) with the altered perception of reality (filed with the retrograde motions and epicycles of software).

How can I expose flawed dogmatic myths at the root of Body of Knowledge for computer science (software) without being perceived to be a scam/fraud?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists feel repugnant when requested to not violate the “scientific method” for acquire theoretical knowledge?

Dear Friends,

Isn’t it fraud (if not crime) against scientific and technological progress, if scientists/researchers blatantly violate well established and proven “scientific method”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method to acquire and include new knowledge in the theoretical foundation of any discipline for expanding its BoK (Body of Knowledge). Certain basic concepts in the BoK for software are nothing more than fiction rooted in wishful thinking. Relying on such flawed concepts or knowledge for technological advancement is violation of basic logic and even common sense.

The purpose of scientific research is discovering new pieces of knowledge (e.g. facts, concepts or theories that can’t be falsified by using existing knowledge) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge by adding the new knowledge to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for the scientific discipline). Each piece of knowledge in the BoK must be supported by falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify using exciting evidence or knowledge); and must be removed from the BoK, if and when new evidence can falsify the proof. The purpose of engineering or technological research is relying on the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation acquired by using scientific method) for either inventing new things or innovation for improving existing inventions).

Any knowledge added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating the scientific method might be invalid and corrupted. Any new pieces of knowledge gained by relying such invalid or corrupted knowledge will be corrupted. Such BoK (theoretical foundation) would insidiously dangerous for engineering research. It is impossible to make any useful invention or innovation by relying on such corrupted knowledge. Most inventions are made by rely on multiple pieces of knowledge in the BoK. It is very unlikely for any technological research to be successful, even if some of the pieces of knowledge is corrupted. For example, is it possible to invent computer chips, by being clueless about the nature of electrons? Software researchers trying to invent CBD for software by being clueless about natures/properties of the CBD and components.

How progress of any scientific discipline research derailed (ends up in crisis): If research community makes a mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. This was exactly what had happened in case of geocentric paradigm for about 1500 years, when researchers made a mistake by assuming that the Earth is static 2000 years ago. Exactly similar mistake was repeated nearly 50 years ago by researchers of computers science (software): By defining that any reusable and/or standardized software parts are components for software products (without giving any consideration to reality/fact, but based on wishful thinking/fiction). The researchers also defined that the objective of the CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components.

The assumption made 2000 years ago that “the Earth is static” was an error. Relying on the error led research efforts in a wrong path for next 1500 years. This resulted in fundamentally altered perception reality, so much so, the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) was perceived to be repugnant/heresy. The researchers in 17^th century had to make huge sacrifices to expose this error. To prove that it was an error, they had to find Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) and prove the Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the scientific knowledge by overcoming the scientific crisis. Copernicus discovered that “the Sun is at the centre”, which eventual proven (e.g. by Kepler, Galileo and Newton) to be a fact. Exposing the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre, which initially perceived to be repugnant/heresy) put the research efforts in the right path, which resulted in the greatest scientific revolution in the history.

Mankind’s scientific knowledge would still be in crisis, if that error were not yet exposed. The experience and suffering endured by 17^th century scientists/researchers to expose the error to overcome the scientific crisis helped them formalize and formulate “scientific method”, particularly to avoid similar kind of foolish mistake (i.e. relying on unproven assumptions that are rooted in myths or wishful thinking). Except computer science, no other modern scientific discipline violated the “scientific method”.

Except the researchers of computer science, so far no other scientific discipline repeated similar kind of foolish error. The errors are: (1) Assumption made nearly 50 years ago that, reusable and/or standardized software parts are components (which is in clear contradiction to reality/fact we know about physical components – Most physical components are custom designed to meet unique needs of its target product) and (2) blindly defining CBSD (CBD for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components. Such untested errors led the research efforts in a wrong path and resulted in fundamentally altered perception of reality (and infamous software crisis), so much so, our discoveries of Truth perceived to be heresy and repugnant.

I have been enduring humiliating insults, snubs and personal attacks, if I try to expose this error by using Truth: I discovered Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the scientific knowledge and for overcoming the scientific crisis. I used the “scientific method” to discover that the reality for CBD of any given product: The reality for CBD can be broadly summarized as implementing about 90% of the features and functionality in un-pluggable/re-pluggable components, which are custom designed to satisfy unique need of the given product, where the replaceable component are optimal sized parts that can be easily un-pluggable (e.g. for redesign it individually) and re-pluggable (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product).

I realized that, I must invent right kind of software component that are capable of enabling real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (i.e. CBD for Software Products), where real CBSD is implementing over 90% of the features and functionality (i.e. code) in replaceable software components, which can be easily un-plugged (e.g. for redesign it individually free from spaghetti code) and re-plugged (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product). I used “scientific method” to discover the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every physically component in the world. This knowledge of reality (acquired by using “scientific method”) allowed me to experiment for many years to invent real software components (having the necessary essential properties) for achieving real-CBSD.

Anyone can make these discoveries on their own by employing “scientific methods”. Unfortunately, most experts feel, it is repugnant, if I request them to use “scientific methods” for discovering the Truth/facts by investigating the objective reality about the nature and essence of the CBD of physical products and nature and properties that are essential for physical components to achieve real CBD. Is it heresy or repugnant: Asking to gain valid knowledge by using proven “scientific methods”?

What is real Science? What are the basic requirement for any discipline to be a real science? Ans: Using “scientific methods” for investigating evidence and/or conduct experiments to discover new pieces or parts of knowledge (i.e. facts, concepts or theories that can’t be falsified) for expanding the BoK. How any scientific discipline could end-up a fake science? Obvious answer is: Expanding its BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by adding more and more new pieces or parts of knowledge created by violating the “scientific method”. The “scientific method” requires that, each piece of knowledge added to the BoK must be supported by a falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify by using existing knowledge); and the piece of the knowledge must be deleted from the BoK, if and when new evidence surfaces that can falsify the proof.

Computer Science has been adding invalid or corrupted knowledge by violating the “scientific methods”. Many parts of the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for software) were never supported by any proof and can be easily falsified. Hence computer science ended up being a fake science. How is it possible to transform a fake science into a real science? Just follow the “scientific methods” to find and falsify pieces or parts of knowledge created by violating the basic “scientific methods” and replace each of them with pieces or parts of knowledge created by employing “scientific methods” (if and when possible). Also remove each piece of the knowledge (that can’t be replaced), if it is not possible to support by irrefutable proof and evidence.

How any scientific discipline ends up in a crisis/paradox: If research community makes a mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. No exception to this simple rule. This was exactly what happened in case of geocentric paradox. This was exactly what happened 50 years ago, when scientists set the goal for CBSE is building applications by assembling reusable components. Isn’t it obvious that the assumption is flawed? This assumption was never even tested. The 17^th century researchers (e.g. Galileo and Descartes) formulated the scientific method to prevent this kind of error at any cost: Investing research efforts by blindly relying on unproven and untested myths for expanding the BoK. Except software researchers, no one else committed this kind of monumental mistake since 17^th century.

The truth (The Sun is at centre) perceived to be repugnant/heresy in the dark ages. Scientists explained the persecution of Truth by saying: It was dark ages for science and insisting that we learned valuable lessons from the painful experience, and insist that great philosophers of 17^th century formalized “Scientific Method” for preventing such mistake again, which has been evolving ever since and matured. What excuse software scientist could find to explain repeat of exactly similar kind of mistake in the 21^st century, except admitting gross negligence, pure incompetence, scandalous or even fraud? Are we still in the dark age for science? I can’t understand why scientists in the 21^st century consider that it is heresy and/or repugnant (resorting to humiliating snubbing or personal attacks), when requested to use “scientific method” to investigate the objective reality to discover facts/Truth?

There is no better tool than “scientific method” to investigate the objective reality for discovering facts/Truth? No real scientist can refute these scientific methods, even if they perceive our discoveries to be repugnant initially. Any researcher denies these facts and scientific method is certainly incompetent and may be even a fraud. Except software researchers, no other scientist or scientific discipline violate scientific method knowingly and so blatantly/foolishly. Many software researchers blindly insist that it is impossible to fallow scientific method. They are absolutely wrong. We made our revolutionary discoveries of Truth/facts by strictly following the scientific method. We are only asking the software researchers to strictly follow the scientific method, just like researchers of any other discipline in the world. Isn’t it a shame and scandal, if any scientist feels that, asking him to not violate the proven scientific method is repugnant? Our scientific discoveries will transform computer science into a real science and our inventions transform software engineering into real engineering.

Toady computer science is a fake science because it has been blatantly violating scientific method. No discipline can be a real science, if it has been acquiring knowledge (for expanding its BoK) by violating scientific method. There are no exceptions to this universal rule. The theoretical foundation (i.e. BoK) created by researchers of computers science for inventing CBSD (or AI) can’t be an exception to this rule. The knowledge created and added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating scientific methods are invalid. No useful technological inventions can be made by relying on such invalid or corrupted knowledge.

The discovery that “the Sun is at the centre” was perceived to be repugnant. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if that error were not yet exposed. It is impossible to make any meaningful progress, if the BoK was filled with such corrupted knowledge. Today my discoveries (made by strictly following scientific process) are perceived to be repugnant. But software researchers and industry (i) have no choice but to follow the scientific method for acquiring necessary knowledge (that is essential for addressing many unsolved problems in software) and (ii) must rely only on the discoveries made by strictly following the scientific methods.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

How to expose a shocking scandal that has been plaguing computer science?

Dear Friends,

Summary of the Scandal: It is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved computer science (software) problems without expanding the theoretical foundation by acquiring certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge. Example for unsolved problems include real-CBD (Component Based Design) or real-AI (Artificial Intelligence). Certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge (to address certain unsolved problems) can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software researchers have been insisting that computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics and refusing to use any other methods (except mathematics) for acquiring knowledge for expanding the theoretical foundation in order to facilitate software inventions for solving any unsolved problems.

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 anyone 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 (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how it works or looks like? For example, a painter could say whether he can pain XYZ or not, only after seeing XYZ. The software researchers have no clue what is XYZ (e.g. real CBD), but insist it is impossible to invent XYZ (e.g. real-CBD for software).  

Without ever even trying, how can anyone insist that knowledge acquired by using scientific methods is useless for addressing such unsolved problems? Isn’t it (i.e. refusing to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge) shocking and scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved problems? I can prove that it is a trivial task to invent solutions for few unsolved problems, if such missing pieces of knowledge is acquired by using scientific methods.

Kindly allow me to illustrate this by using an example: For example, the infamous software crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components.

The reason for the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models of next generation jet-fighters.

The essential properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods), it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable proof backed by evidence.

This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved problems of software. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).

The scientific methods can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits on an integrated circuits today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) and compare that to number of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.

Even a honey-bee can manoeuvre many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand, scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such knowledge.

The research effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing real software components.

I have made such simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is openly provided in my web-site http://real-software-components.com and in my ResearchGate account. We (i.e. http://pioneer-soft.com) built first and only GUI-platform in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved problems.

I don’t have the resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific methods).

To invent solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI, which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions. Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?

Many software researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such inventions): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics

Please kindly remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering BoK) 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 every respected researcher tries to cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by refusing to see the evidence)?

How can we emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? Mathematics is incapable of providing such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only by using scientific methods. No painter can paint XYZ (i.e. rea-CBD), if he has no clues how XYZ (or real-CBD) looks like. Today no software expert can provide accurate summary or realistic description for real CBD. Isn’t a scandal?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

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