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

Can you believe that a modern scientific discipline has been evolving by relying on untested myth and violating scientific principles/processes?

            It is a clear violation of well established scientific processes and proven principles to rely on untested and unproven assumptions (as if the assumptions are self-evident facts) for advancing our scientific or technological knowledge. If the untested or undocumented tacit assumption at the root of any scientific or technological paradigm is flawed, the whole paradigm is nothing more than science fiction and a paradox, even if the paradigm evolved for decades or even centuries and comprising countless concepts and observations created painstakingly by tens of thousands of respected researchers.

Mankind tried to advance scientific knowledge for 1000 years by relying on tacit assumption that “the Earth is static”. No one ever tried to validate this assumption (by insisting that it is a self-evident fact that requires no validation), while most philosophers don’t even aware that it was an assumption. 

Likewise, software researchers have been tiring to advance scientific and technological knowledge by relying on tacit assumption such as it is impossible to discover accurate description for physical functional components (or CBD of physical products) and even if it is possible, it is impossible to invent real software components equivalent to the physical functional components for achieving real CBD for software, where real CBD for software is equivalent to the CBD of physical products. No one ever tried to validate these tacit assumptions and most researchers don’t even aware that these are the assumption at the root of existing software engineering paradigm.

Most researchers feel offended, if I say the assumptions at the root of software engineering never tested and flawed. Unfortunately many resorted to personal attacks and insults, by assuming that I am offending their common sense. There are two ways to resolve this debate (1) prove me wrong: If they feel, I am wrong, they can show me who validated the assumption that it is impossible to discover accurate description for physical functional components (or CBD of physical products)? If it is possible to if it is possible, it is impossible to invent real software components equivalent to the physical functional components for achieving real CBD for software, where real CBD for software is equivalent to the CBD of physical products. 

If such proof exists, I don’t believe that it is a top secret and known only to select few researchers. Unfortunately many experts feel offended, when I asked for proof to show that such axioms are not assumptions but facts.

The other way for resolving this debate is (2) give me an opportunity and validate my proof with open mind. I provided comprehensive proof at http://www.real-software-components.com and articles published under my research-gate account. This rational reasoning is backed by my invention of first ever GUI-API to build real-software-components for allowing COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBD (Component Based Design):

Of course, COP requires ability to build real-software-components. Likewise, COP requires discovering and knowledge of essential characteristics (uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components) to positively identify functionality and features that can be implemented as real-software-components. Using our GUI-API even junior Java programmers can create real-software-components and assemble them to build component hierarchies for achieving real CBD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

Unfortunately most researchers insist that, no such proof needs more than 45 minutes and 9 slides. Furthermore, many of them insist or feel offended, if any of the concepts of new paradigm contradicts accepted concepts or so called facts (e.g. epicycles or retrograde motions) of existing deeply entrenched paradigm. They grossly underestimate the complexity of a paradigm shift. It took more than 100 years for such paradigm shift, which is illustrated by chronology of events: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

Few undocumented assumptions (such as software is different and/or unique) were made in the 1960, when computer science and software engineer were in infancy (when assembly language was widely used for programming language and FORTRAN was cutting edge language). Structured and Object oriented languages were just beyond imagination. Unfortunately the assumptions were not documented, even though such assumption might be justifiable or considered self-evident facts at that time. If the assumptions were documented, they would be on the radar of the successive generation of researchers, for example, for validation when and if technology advances sufficiently.

Tens of thousands of researchers around the world created countless concepts for advancing our scientific knowledge and software engineering during 1970s by relying on such untested and tacit assumptions made in 1960s. During 1980s, countless new concepts, experience reports and observations were created by tens of thousands of researchers relying on the concepts and knowledge created during 1970s. Likewise, during 1990s, countless new concepts, experience reports and observations were created by relying on the concepts and knowledge accumulated since 1960s, and so on.

I am sure most of these accepted concept and research papers were created by sound logic and impeccable reasoning, which further rigorously vetted by community of independent researchers before being accepted. I am not questioning the validity of these research papers or their brilliant contributions, but I am questioning the validity of hidden (and now unknown) assumption at the root of these complex paradigm. The retrograde motions and epicycles are irrefutable facts, if the hidden seed assumption “the Earth is static” is True. Anyone can observe retrograde motions and epicycles by standing on so called static Earth, but now we know what went wrong.

Unfortunately many researchers feel that I am questioning their reasoning and logic, when my concepts or statements contradict the concepts presented by their research papers. It is wrong. I am only questioning the validity of forgotten or unknown assumptions at the root of existing software engineering paradigm. If the seed assumptions at the root are flawless, each of the concepts derived by relying on them by using sound logic and irrefutable reasoning must be flawless. Just because any one can observe them, the retrograde motions can’t be scientific fact. Likewise, accurately describing observable phenomena in isolation can’t make a concept a scientific fact. I am sure, each of the papers was rigorously vetted (e.g. based on long list of references provided at the end) before accepting the concepts and experiences presented in the paper.

The software researchers, who are writing papers now in 2010s may be relying on knowledge of existing paradigm evolving for past 45 years and consistent with countless concepts accumulated during past 45 years. For example, every concept and observation accepted up until 500 years ago were consistent with the perception of reality illustrated by the FIG-1 in this webpage: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html (FIG-4 illustrates the perception of reality exists today).

It is impossible to see a new paradigm form the prism tainted by old paradigm. It is illegal circular logic to defend egocentrism by relying on retrograde motions.  So the researchers must ignore all the accumulated knowledge and focus on validating the seed assumption at the root. I can expose the errors in the seed assumptions at the root, if the researchers willing to look at the evidence with open mind (i.e. non-tainted prism).

If the researchers insist there is nothing wrong with the existing paradigm, they must answer why do we need new/different and strange definitions for software components and CBD for software, which are in clear contradiction to the reality we know about the physical functional components and CBD for physical products? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

If every one refuses to see proof, how is it possible to expose flaws in scientific foundation & blatant violations of scientific processes/rules?

Exposing tacit assumptions having errors at the root of any deeply entrenched paradigm is one the most complex tasks for any scientist, but when successful results in a real scientific revolution and unprecedented scientific advancements. The geocentric paradigm is one of the classic examples for such paradigm that has evolved from tacit assumption “the Earth is static”.

A tacit assumption is an assumption no one consciously aware of its existence and/or not documented to educate subsequent researchers.  That is, many concepts and observations are created and documented by relying on the tacit assumption (may be without even consciously aware of the tacit assumption). These early concepts and observations would become foundation for constructing (i.e. evolving) mankind’s perception of reality, for example, by adding more and more concepts and observations by the research efforts of successive generations of researchers. That is, mankind’s perception of reality evolves and expands over time as more and more concepts and observations are added by relying on these foundational concepts and observations.

Please review Figure-1 in this web page that represents the mankind’s perception of reality up until 500 years ago: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

This perception of reality (i.e. geocentric paradigm) had been evolved for nearly 2000 years and by the efforts of thousands of astronomers and philosophers. This perception of reality consists of (and/or supported by) thousands of observations and concepts. All these concepts and observations consistent with each other and paint a perception of reality that is consistent with the Figure-1.

But unfortunately there existed not even a single accepted or documented concept and/or observation in support of reality painted by the Figure-4 until 500 years ago. The figure-4 represents the perception of reality exists today. Of course, today there exists thousands of concepts and observations consistent with each other and paint a perception of reality that is consistent with the reality represented by Figure-4.

Almost each and every concept and observation of geocentric paradigm contradicts existing heliocentric paradigm. Likewise, almost each and every concept and observation of heliocentric paradigm contradicts geocentric paradigm. In other words, one can find a dozen observations or concepts of geocentric paradigm to contradict any of the concepts and observations of heliocentric paradigm.

Hence how is it possible to start presenting heliocentric paradigm? Whichever concept one can possibly pick in heliocentric paradigm can be discredited by a dozen widely accepted concepts or observations of then deeply entrenched geocentric paradigm (and conventional wisdom). In fact, saying “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense (and conventional wisdom). In this hostile and inhospitable conditions, how is it possible to show proof?

One must be willing to spend considerable time to investigate the truth by analyzing the observations and concepts with open mind, where each of the concepts and observations fills a piece to paint the perception of reality for the heliocentric model. No research paper can present even single concept (that only paints a piece – a small part) backed by observations, especially when a dozen concepts or observations of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom contradict the piece (i.e. a small part painted by the concept backed by observations).

Furthermore each piece must be backed by physical evidence (e.g. predictable results from repeatable experiments or observations). Unfortunately most researchers refuse to see such experimental results, even in the 21^st century. Kindly recall Galilio’s famous letter to Kepler in year 1610:

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

Is there any wonder, it took over 100 years for gestalt shift from geocentric paradigm to heliocentric paradigm? Please see the chronology of the events that illustrates the complexity for such gestalt shift: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

How could Galileo expose the error at the root of geocentric paradigm, even if Galileo has spaceship (instead of Telescope) to take them outer space to show planetary paths in time-lapse motion, if fellow philosophers refuse to even talk to him. Apparently this kind of behaviour frustrated many other great scientists such as Max Plank how said “science advances one funeral at a time”, father of dark matter Fritz Zwicky referred many of his colleagues as “spherical bastards” and of course Einstein’s famous quote about infinite human stupidity.

I have been facing the kind problem to expose flawed tacit assumptions at the root of now deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm. It is highly frustrating, because I have been struggling to show proof for many years and almost every researcher refused to see physical proof: The real software components that are absolutely essential for real COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software).

For example, software researchers absolutely have no clue what is real CBSD, but insist that it is impossible. How can they blindly insist without even trying to know what is the essence and nature of real CBSD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

Researchers of Computer sciences are practising very bad science by blatantly violating scientific principles, processes and rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

I contacted many research organizations (e.g. NFS.gov, NITRD.gov, NIST.gov and SEI/CMU) requested many times to give me an opportunity to demonstrate physical evidence (e.g. GUI applications built by literally assembling real-software-components, which are created by using our GUI-API). Today no other GUI-API is capable of creating such real-software-components, because no one else in the world even know what real software components are and what real CBSD is. I even told them that, they can take legal action against me, if I am wrong. As a responsible researcher, I feel, I must sue the organizations for being negligent and abdicating their basic duties and obligations, but unfortunately I can’t afford such a law suit.

I am beginning to think, I might not be able to expose the erroneous tacit assumptions of computer science that are at the root existing deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm and CBSE. If I fail, I believe, no meaningful lasting progress is possible in the field of real CBSE. I feel, exposing the error transforms computer science in to real science, which I feel is essential for many other discoveries and disciplines such as real Artificial Intelligence. For example, basic sciences are not real sciences until exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradigm and exposing the error resulted in transforming basic sciences into real sciences.

The basic scientific principles, processes and rules were created and perfected for past 400 years to guide the research for real sciences. No real science can violate the proven scientific principles, processes and established rules. But unfortunately researchers of computer science blatantly violating the principles, processes and rules by using unsubstantiated excuses such as software is unique and/or different. It is hotly debated, weather the computer science is real science or pseudo-science.

In pseudo sciences like, economic or social sciences, it is not possible to follow scientific principles and processes. I am sure, computer science is not real science because it is blatantly violating basis scientific processes and principles. However computer science can be a real science, because it is possible to follow the basis scientific processes and principle. But unfortunately researchers ignoring my best efforts to make them aware of blatant violations of scientific principles and processes. Almost every one refused to give me an opportunity to present sound reasoning backed by irrefutable physical evidence. Isn’t it gross negligence, especially if they are working for national agencies such as NITRD.gov and NSF.gov, who are appointed to position of responsibility for actively seeking disruptive scientific discoveries that can result in huge scientific and technological advancements?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

What kind of scientists deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules?

Is it acceptable, if judges blindly argue and/or advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating basic constitutional principles or breaking basic laws of the land? If any judge does it, isn’t it a clear abdication of his/her sacred duty of doing justice to innocent victims?

Why is it any different, if scientists blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? The very purpose and true essence of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth, for example, by discovering new scientific facts for expanding boundaries of mankind’s knowledge for getting closer and closer to absolute truth.

Where can I find real scientists, who are not going to blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? I have been searching for real scientists in the fields of computer science and software engineering for over 5 years and not able to find even single real scientist.

Isn’t it clear violation of scientific process to blindly define the nature (e.g. essential properties) of physical functional components and the nature (e.g. essential aspects or true essence) of the ideal CBD of physical products, without any basis in reality or fact (but based on wishful thinking or in pursuit of a fictional fantasy)?

Isn’t clear violation of scientific rules to rely on such definitions (made out of thin air without any basis in reality or fact) for advancing scientific and/or technological knowledge by concluding and blindly defending that the definitions are self-evident truths, where such inalienable self-evident truths (i.e. definitions for software components and CBSE) requires no validation or proof?

Scientific research often relies on two kinds of enquiry (1) enquiry of fact of nature (e.g. irrefutable facts/results obtained by either observation of reality/nature or from reliably repeatable experiments) and (2) enquiry of effects or phenomena of nature, for example by using rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations (e.g. to quantify or measure the empirical results or facts).

Some irrefutable discovery of facts include, (1) the Sun is at the center of our planetary system and planets are circling around the Sun (2) there exists attraction (i.e. gravitational force) between any two bodies having measurable mass, and (3) the force of attraction increases if the masses of the bodies are increased and force of attraction decreases if the distance between the bodies is increased.

These are few examples for absolute scientific Truths proven beyond any doubt. Please notice that these absolute scientific Truths not try to quantify the orbits of planets (as Kepler did it) of force of attraction with respect to masses or distance (as Newton did it). The first step of scientific discovery includes answering broader questions, such as which planet is at the center, is there exists force of attraction between any two bodies having mass? If the answer is Yes, what kind of effect the masses and distance have on the force of attraction?

The second step is to understand and explain the phenomena of nature: Scientist need to quantify orbits of planets or measure the planetary paths by applying rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations. That is want the discoveries and inventions of Kepler and Newton did.

Now let’s come to computer science: Does the physical functional components uniquely and universally share any nature (e.g. a set of essential properties)? If answer is Yes, is it possible to discover the set of essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by every physical functional component? If answer is Yes, is it possible to invent real software components that are equivalent to the physical functional component by having the set of essential properties?

Unfortunately software researchers blindly concluded 50 years ago and have been insisting that the answers are - No, without ever even attempting to make any investigation of facts. It is impossible to find that anyone else ever even tried to investigate such basic facts in the past 50 years.

Instead researchers 50 years ago decided to define nature (i.e. essential properties) to suite their wishful thinking or fantasy such as building large software applications by assembling reusable standardized COTS (Commercial Of the Shelf) components as hardware engineers build computers. To suite (or in pursuit of) this fantasy, they defined that reusable and/or standardized software parts are software components.

Likewise, since 1970 many kinds of software components were invented, where each kind of software components by definition is a kind of software parts having a given set of properties or conforming to a so called component model, without any basis in reality or facts but in pursuit of a fictional fantasy or wishful thinking. Any scientific discipline or engineering paradigm evolved or in pursuit of such fictional fantasy by relying on such baseless myths is nothing more than mythology. Isn’t it a classic definition for fake or pseudo science?

Whenever I try to point out numerous violations of basic scientific principles, proven processes, established rules and resultant epicycles and contradictions, each of the respected software scientists insist that software is unique or different and computer science is not real science. In my view, computer science can become real science. The problem is that the software scientists are fake or pseudo scientists, who may be brilliant but foolishly refusing to learn and practice basic scientific processes, processes and rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions 

I believe, so called self styled scientists who practice such fake science are fake scientists. Forgive me, if it is offensive to call such software scientists fake scientists, if they deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules.

They refuse to engage in productive scientific debate or inspect physical evidence (i.e. real-software-components and real CBSD) but instead resort to insults and personal attacks. Is this really what happens in real basic sciences? The real sciences whet through that phase 400 years ago. In 21st century, such discovery of an error in seed axioms at the root of any basic sciences is shocking to real scientists, which certainly leads to scramble for answers why such error (i.e. untested unproven axiom) slipped without detection. Isn’t he a fake scientist, if it is not shocking or if he tries to justify the error by using baseless excuses such as the scientific discipline is unique or different (so not real science)?

It is the time to call a spade a spade. If a science is fake science, it must be called a fake science. Any scientist, who defends, encourages or teaches such fake science is a fake scientist. The corrupted system must be completely rebuilt by discovering absolute truths. In the modern 21st century there is room for intermediate steps (an another less flawed system) such as Tychonic model (that is proposed as a compromise between geocentric model and heliocentric model).

Some of the basic truths include, there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential properties) that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components. It is possible to discover the essential properties. It is possible to invent real software components that share the essential properties and hence are equivalent to the physical functional components.

Likewise there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential aspects) that is uniquely and universally shared by CBD of each and every known physical product. It is possible to discover the essential aspects. It is possible for the real software components to achieve the real CBD for software that shares the essential aspects and hence is equivalent to the physical functional components.

I can provide irrefutable proof for these basic truths. This is the first step of discovery process, so it is not necessary to quantify these basic truths in the first step of discovery. Quantifying the accurate definitions is second step. I have tried to quantify the accurate descriptions, which may not be absolute truths but, I believe, close enough to the absolute truths. There is always room for improvements.

For example, Kepler’s laws to quantify the planetary orbits or Newton’s laws of to quantify universal gravity are not absolute truths but close enough for most of the practical purposes. For example, Newton’s laws of universal gravity explained the minor anomalies in the Kepler’s laws and Einstein’s theory of general relativity exposed minor anomalies in the Newton’s laws of universal gravity. Of course, researchers across the world are relentlessly working to expand the human knowledge closer and close to absolute Truth (i.e. in pursuit of the absolute Truth).

None of this would have possible without exposing the error at the root of geocentric model. Exposing the error allowed scientific progress we are enjoying now by putting the derailed scientific progress on the right tracks.  Likewise, no meaningful scientific progress is possible in computer science without putting the progress on right tracks by following proven scientific process and established scientific rules without denying basic scientific principles. We must expose fake scientists to attract real scientists or encourage real scientific research for transforming computer science form a fake science to a real science.

Real scientific research requires open honest exchange of ideas and documentation of irrefutable facts by real scientists who know basic scientific principles and who are honestly willing to follow the basic scientific principles (e.g. processes and rules). Today there exists inhospitable environment that is hostile to open honest discussion and to the very survival of real scientists. Fake scientists are ignorant of basic scientific principles and defending the existing flawed paradox by refusing to follow (or hostile to) basic scientific processes or rules.

My polite hypocrisy not worked for past 5 years, which is forcing me to consider brutal honesty.  How long one should beat around the bush (e.g. by using polite hypocrisy or humble persuasion to not hurt egos)? Eventually one would be left with no other option except calling a spade (fake scientists) a spade (i.e. fake scientist), if fake scientists burry their heads in the sand and refuse to see facts and reasoning.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

CEO, Pioneer-soft.com

Software researchers practising bad science by relying on untested/unproven flawed concepts/definitions

It must be shocking for any real scientist (e.g. in physics or biology), if he learns that he has been wasting many years of his research effort by relying on untested and unproven concepts, definitions or axioms (by assuming that the axioms are self-evident truths). He is an unfit scientist or researcher, if he says that it is OK to rely on untested and unproven concepts and definitions (made up by relying on wishful thinking or fantasy, without any consideration to reality or facts).

Science is unforgiving and immutable. If a two-year old innocent kid accidentally touches a high-voltage wire, it won’t forgive him for considering his innocence or age. Science is like that. It won’t be forgiving, even for innocent mistakes: No real scientist knowingly can rely on untested and unproven definitions or concepts – This basic scientific rule/fact is not a fact/rule that can be disputed. Also please kindly remember, a small mistake magnifies over time. For example, 1mm error in a rifle leads its bullet to miss its target at 1KM distance by a meter (3.3ft), may be hitting an innocent hostage, instead of terrorist.

Even small error in seed axioms results in deviation away from right path and would magnify over 50 years of intense software research by relying on the error. One encounters retrograde motions and epicycles that can’t be made sense, so researchers end up making up concepts and definitions to make sense of nonsense. Harder they try the further they move away from the Truth and Reality. The further and further they move from the truth, the harder and harder it is to recognize either the Reality or the error committed decades ago.

Any such error results in paradoxical paradigm (filled with concepts and definitions invented to make sense of things such as retrograde motions, which can’t be make sense) and this altered and flawed reality perceived to be real by everyone in the field. And the reality would appear to be a strange alternate universe. It is impossible to overcome this (e.g. achieve gestalt shift) without exposing the root cause - a small error 50 years ago. Only way is to go back to correct the error and re-evolve the reality by relying on the Truth.

“Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.” … Galileo Galilei

            Nature and reality is immutable and unforgiving, even if it is small innocent error many decades ago. Even 10 times the combined wealth of mankind can’t change the reality. Unfortunately most software researchers choose to be ignorant rather than rational about their mistakes. The software researchers committed not a small mistake but a large mistake 50 years ago. The definitions and concepts for software components are not a small deviation from reality, but a huge deviation by completely ignoring the reality.

            Please kindly see figures 1 and 4 at http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html. The core dispute between years 1530 and 1660 was “which planet is at the centre”. Putting Earth at the centre resulted in a complex paradoxical paradigm. The concepts of heliocentric reality made no sense (appeared to be strange alternate universe) to the philosophers practising egocentrism. Saying 500 years ago that “the Sun is at centre” offended common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom.

            It is impossible to win this battle by relying on concepts of each paradigm. It was not a battle between concepts of two paradigms. It was a battle between the axioms at the root of two different paradigms - which planet was at the centre – two competing facts – only one can be Truth. Likewise, today’s dispute must be: what is the nature of the physical components and CBD of physical products. Whoever gets the facts closer to practicable absolute truth must win the argument. The only way to verify the Truth is by proposing falsifiable concepts and definitions, which can’t be proven wrong by empirical evidence.

They can’t rely on existing concepts, theories or definitions. How is it possible to determine, which one it true? Only thing anyone can rely on is empirical results and repeatable experiments. But researchers refuse to even investigate the reality. They are refusing to see real software component and applications built by assembling the real software components – Irrefutable proof for the reality. They choose to be ignorant rather than rational.

They continue to choose the option of relying on untested definitions for nature of components and CBD of physical products, by ignoring the reality. Anyone can observe retrograde motion by standing on so called static Earth, but we know what went wrong. So each paradigm must provide an irrefutable reasoning to any observation made in real world. The new proposal can’t be falsified by any observation or experimental results. Furthermore, the new proposal can only rely on observations and empirical results (but not on any unproven concepts or definitions and their derivatives).

            If the Earth were at the centre, then retrograde motion is reality. But they can’t use the retrograde motion to defend the geocentric model. It is called illegal circular logic. Likewise, no concept of today can be used to defend the definitions for the components (or existing CBSE paradigm). So I choose to confront the research community, hoping I can find at least 1% rational scientists, who are not yet indoctrinated into the cult: http://raju-chiluvuri.blogspot.in/2015/11/if-computer-science-is-not-real-science.html

            Until 400 to 500 years ago disputed point was which planet is at the centre. The entire knowledge and concepts represented by figure-1 ended up flawed and useless, when the error at the root is exposed. Today focus point must be discovering the accurate definitions (i.e. nature) of physical components for achieving real CBD that are closer to reality (yet practicable to adopt for software engineering).

            Today software researchers and scientists are indifference to the things that would be shocking to any scientist in basic sciences. It is not OK to rely on untested and unproven concepts to advance knowledge, because it is waste of effort if the concept is flawed. This error already cost a trillion dollars to world economy by manifesting as software crisis. This error resulted in a complex paradoxical software engineering paradigm, which is preventing them from seeing reality, which is all around and obvious to even a layman: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

Almost everyone agrees that, it is bad science to rely on untested unproven axioms for advancing our knowledge. No one disputes with this basic process or fact/rule, because it is not a rule or process that can be disputed. But they use endless excuses to not follow the basic process/rule. For example, by giving yet another untested and unproven excuse such as software is different or unique, again without giving any evidence why and in what manner? I get so many such untested and unproven evasive excuses, while still agreeing that it is a bad science to rely on unproven concepts.

If you continue to probe, they snub, ignore or continue to give stupid evasive examples, such as you can’t build software products as we can build computers by assembling commercially of the shelf components. So what? We can’t build tens of thousands of other CBD products either (as we can build the computers or cell phones). For starters, no other product (e.g. cars or airplanes) can differentiate from competing products by using software (e.g. OS & applications). Most products need to custom design large percent of core components to differentiate from competing products: http://www.real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD_postulations.html

I have hard time understanding, why they use every possible evasive tactics? How can anyone overcome evasive tactics? I have tried everything and running our off options. I face lot of arrogance and incompetence. And for few researchers, especially in India, only thing bigger than their incompetence is their arrogance.  Also I sense lot of prejudice, discrimination or even racism in the west. I am sure most of the cases racism may not be intentional but manifestation of subconscious prejudice.

Many researchers expect such discoveries or reality could only be proposed by a professor at western University such as MIT or Stanford. But certainly not open to accept form an Indian with an accent. It is certainly a form of prejudice and decimation, if one expects such scientific Reality can only come from a person who can speak perfect English, and not open to listen to an Indian, who is not good at English. Isn’t it discrimination or prejudice? Don’t anyone has equal right to do research & make discoveries?

Response from researchers starts from condescending, patronizing to insults and snubbing. Would they behave in the same way, if it is proposed by a professor at a western university? These kinds of things unlikely to come from a University professor, because almost every one of them indoctrinated into the cult.  These kinds of things likely come from outsider who accidentally stumbled onto something (no one is there to pullback into mainstream/cult), having lot of time to dedicate full time for a decade on the research and not accountable to anyone else except to his passion and irresistible curiosity.

All I am asking is just one proven Truth in support of the existing definitions and concepts, but not excuses and rationalization for things that can’t be made sense. On the other hand, I am asking an opportunity to demonstrate hundreds of real software components that are capable of achieving real CBSD and hierarchies of components built literally by plugging in the real software components… Is it too much to ask? Don’t reals scientists have an obligation to know the Truth? In fact, it is a sacred duty to investigate the Truth, which they have been abdicating by using evasive tactics. Unfortunately most software researchers argue that computer science is not real science (and software engineering is not real engineering). There is no problem with the computer science. The real problem is with the scientists: They are not practicing good science. They are practicing bad science by violating basic scientific process/rules and blaming the computer science.

Each Researcher has an obligation to know Truth – It is his sacred Duty

Except software products, no other product created by using components has spaghetti design. There is no valid reason, why software alone must be burdened with spaghetti design/code. This document/page provides 3-page summary about the reality about the CBD (Component Based Design). The 3 minute video gives just an example of reality of CBD. Each year mankind is building 100s of such new kind of products. Software experts use baseless excuses such as software is unique and different, without any valid justification for why and what manner it is unique/different.

Each and every component of such physical products is being constantly and frequently redesigned without being burdened by spaghetti code/design. Any component can be disassembled to refine and test individually to satisfy exact needs and fit perfectly by performing as expected. Engineer of any component is not forced to see even a single line of internal code implemented for any other component. Over 90% of the physical product is free from spaghetti code, since 90% of features and functionality is implemented in such custom individual components. This is the well-known and obvious reality of the design of any large physical products.

 Researchers and scientists has an obligation to know the Truth about reality. In fact, it is their sacred duty, because the very purpose of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth. Existing software engineering paradigm is rooted in fundamentally flawed assumptions “the reusable software parts/modules are components” or “any kind of useful software part is a kind of a component”. It has no basis in reality. In fact, most fact or concepts for CBD for software contradicts countless facts or concepts we know about the reality of physical functional components & CBD of physical products.

            Who invented or discovered this kind definitions for components or CBD? Who tested or validated it? No one knowns. No one can give names or documentation for proof. I can’t find answers to these basic questions, even after being in this industry for 30 years, of which 15 years doing research on components and CBD. The existing paradigm for software engineering has been evolving for 50 years by relying on such untested assumptions by considering the assumptions as self-evident truths.

            This paradigm is not much different from geocentric paradigm existed until 500 years ago. No one could name, who discovered “the Earth is static at the centre” and “who proved this”. They assumed that “the Earth is static” is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. On the other hand, we don’t need a Ph.D or MS to answer these simple questions: Even a school kid knows, who discovered “the sun is at the centre”.

Who proved this Truth? Many science college graduates may say newton’s discoveries of laws or motion, universal gravity and invention of calculous conclusively proved this fact. The invention of calculous allowed providing mathematical proof. Later we found many discoveries independently and repeatedly confirmed this Truth. For example, to name one: The observation of perturbation in the Orbit of Uranus lead to suspicion of existence of another planet and lead to the discovery of Neptune.

The most important thing now is, not proof alone but mankind found no evidence to contradict this Truth (i.e. the Sun is at the centre). In the basic sciences every basic Truth is discovered by someone (whose name/names is widely known) and the Truth is provide beyond any reasonable doubt, where the proof is also widely known. Any evidence to contradict the Truth or Proof would be documented and investigated until it reaches a logical conclusion. Without this kind well documented proof, no one would blindly rely on any unproven Truth for advancing our knowledge.

Computer science is in crisis because researchers sheepishly and blindly relying on wishful thinking and fantasy proposed 50 years ago (e.g. at a 1968 NASA conference) – building software by assembling COTS (Commercially Off The Shelf) parts from 3^rd party component vendors. They assumed that it is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. Some people named it Software-ICs (i.e. analogues to ICs that are used for building computers or cell-phones). It is just nothing but a 21^st century alchemy. No one can name, who discovered the nature of components and who proved it. No documentation can be found for any kind of proof or evidence. These flawed axioms deeply entrenched into our collective consciousness over 50 years.

Software researchers become slaves of their prejudices. They lost their integrity and have no courage to face the truth, plain and simple. They are blocking the progress of knowledge. As if this is not bad enough, they helped create the conditions for the establishment of a brainwashed and intolerant society that is hostile to freedom of thought. In short, establishing a dictatorship over minds against common sense and obvious reality. The above are harsh words, but undeniable Truths. The research community abdicated their sacred duty. They created a hostile situation by making it impossible to even express Truth freely and openly. Today, pioneer-soft.com created a GUI-API and tools that even a fresh software graduate can create real-software-components for achieving real CBD for software (having 0% spaghetti code). Many researchers refuse to see such empirical evidence, by demanding non-existing references such as research papers or text books. Where could anyone find reference to heliocentric model 500 years ago? Only way is to see empirical evidence.

Many researchers in medical field want a vaccine to prevent cancer – is it a discovery or wishful thinking? Many scientist in physics want to invent cold-fusion – It is not a discovery but just a desire. Only way to realize this wish is by making necessary scientific discoveries, but not by making up laws of nature without any basis in reality. Few software researchers 50 years ago wanted to invent components, such that, software developers can build software by assembling prefabricated reusable software components – this is not a discovery but a desire. It is not hard to prove that the desire is a fantasy no different from alchemy in the dark ages. They choose to make up nature of the components and CBD, instead of discovering the nature and reality about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products.

In basic sciences, researchers try to discover Truth about the reality (e.g. for achieving a desire such as cold fusion or a new vaccine) and try to invent things by relying the validated Truths/facts. In software, researchers invented the Truths (for components based on their fantasy) and try to fit the reality to the fantasy.

This mistake at the root of existing software engineering paradigm has huge costs – blocking the scientific progress by hostile to free thought. It is impossible to predict what great discoveries and inventions lay ahead (if and when we overcome these blockades), when computer science and software engineering respectively transformed in to real science and real engineering. I feel, discoveries that will lead to the invention of real AI (Artificial Intelligence) is one of them.

How axioms that are considered to be self-evident Truths could result in scientific crisis?

Mankind concluded thousands of years ago that “the Earth is static” (i.e. believing that it is self-evident Truth requires no proof or even any mention). Mankind relied on this axiom (without even realizing that it as an axiom) for investigating and understanding the reality. Over 1500 hundred years mankind evolved a complex paradoxical paradigm (which was later named as geocentric paradigm) comprising countless concepts based on countless observations such as epicycles and retrograde motions of planets.

Likewise, believing that it is self-evident Truth requires no proof or even any mention, software researchers concluded 50 years ago that it is impossible to invent real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical functional components) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software), where the real CBSD is equivalent to the CBD of one-of-a-kind physical products such as an experimental spaceship or prototype of next generation jet-fighter.

Software researchers and industry relied on this kind of axioms (without even realizing that they are relying of just unsubstantiated axioms, so not even making any mention of such baseless assumptions) for investigating and understanding the reality of software engineering. Over past 50 years mankind evolved a complex paradoxical paradigm (which was not yet named, because no one even aware of what those axioms or assumptions were) comprising countless concepts based on countless observations not much different from epicycles and retrograde motions.

Of course, such axioms or assumptions might be self-evident truth 50 years ago when assembly languages and FORTRAN were leading edge technologies. Are such assumptions still valid? Today I am sure we can invent any kind of software components having any kind of properties, if we can discover the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. Absolutely there is no valid reason why we can’t discover such essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component.

One of the primary purpose of basic sciences ranging from biology, chemistry, zoology or scientific discipline of microbiology such as virology, mycology, parasitology, and bacteriology is to find accurate descriptions for countless physical beings (i.e. diverse species) that are many times more complex than the physical functional components.  Hence, most the basic sciences must be fundamentally flawed or fiction, if it is impossible to discover the accurate description for the physical functional components, for example, to positively determine a part, whether if it is a component (for achieving real CBD) or not a component at all.

The accurate description for the physical functional components might be a set of essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If it is possible to discover such essential properties, there is no valid reason for why it is not possible to invent real software components that can achieve real CBSD by sharing the essential properties. At pioneer-Soft we invented such real software components that are capable of achieving real CBD for software products. Within weeks, we will be demonstrating them openly on our website and also providing libraries for building such components and source code for anyone to validate the real-software-components by achieving real CBD for software.