The complementary perspective of “scientific methods” of Popper and Kuhn for comprehending the nature of scientific BoK (Body of Knowledge)

Dear Friends,

One can find many WebPages, if he searches for “Kuhn Vs Popper”. Many of argue that there are certain differences or even conflicts between “scientific method” of Popper and Kuhn. But I think, Kuhn illustrates “how scientific disciplines progress over time”, while Popper provides guidance for “how scientific disciplines ought to be advanced”. I feel there is no conflict (but in fact they are perfectly complement each other): Dr. Kuhn illustrates that the BoK of scientific disciplines are accumulated by relying on “consensus”, for example, as geocentric paradox was evolved until 17^th century by relying on 2300 years old “consensus” “the Earth is static”.

My intension is to highlight the complementary nature of their contributions. Dr. Kuhn, provided invaluable insights into the reasons or causes for hidden imperfections (e.g. untested “consensuses” or “received beliefs”) in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) of any scientific discipline. Dr. Popper provided invaluable methods for searching (e.g. for spotting), minimizing or even eliminating the imperfections.

When a new scientific discipline was in its infancy researchers (or wise men or though leaders) have no choice, and forced to agree upon certain “consensuses” (i.e. make educated assumptions perceived to be self-evident fact by relying on then available technology, evidence or knowledge). For example, 2300 years ago, it was inconceivable to imagine that the Earth is moving around the Sun, because it was mind baffling to explain, how could the Moon follow the Earth (i.e. without being left behind), if the Earth is moving at mind- boggling speed around the Sun (today we know that the speed is 28KM/Sec).

Likewise, software “thought leaders” (or wise men) agreed upon certain “consensus” 50 to 60 years ago. The research efforts of software researchers have been relying on the “consensuses” (believed to be self-evident facts) and these research efforts spanning over 50 years resulted in accumulating huge BoK (Body of Knowledge), which I must be 25 to 50 times bigger than the BoK existed in 17^th century for geocentric paradox. I have been struggling for nearly a decade for exposing flawed “consensuses” (today believed to be self-evident facts for eternity) against huge resistance from the software establishment. I gained valuable insights from my not-yet successful struggles to expose the deeply entrenched flawed CBSD/CBSE (Component Based Software Design/Engineering) paradox (I call it the geocentric paradox of software engineering):

There is no exception to this important rule: Any flawed or corrupt evidence diverts any investigation into a wrong path. Likewise, any research efforts for any scientific or engineering discipline would be diverted into a wrong path, if it is rooted in (by relying on) flawed beliefs or “consensuses” (e.g. agreed by wise men by considering each “consensus” is self-evident fact).

Isn’t it common sense that any logical reasoning, investigation or analysis of evidence would end up in a wrong path, if it relies on beliefs or evidence, which turned out to be flawed (due to sloppiness or bad luck). Any scientific discipline ends up creating a complex paradox (i.e. fundamentally altered perception of reality) supported by huge BoK (Body of Knowledge), if considerable research effort is invested for advancing the mankind’s knowledge in the wrong path (without realizing the flawed “consensus” at the root) for long enough time. Such research effort relying on flawed “consensus” (considered to be self-evident facts) results in accumulating huge BoK (filed with epicycles and retrograde motions of respective discipline).

In the view of Dr. Kuhn, this kind of paradox (i.e. altered perception of reality) is a scientific crisis. A paradigm shift is replacing the huge BoK accumulated for the geocentric paradox of any scientific discipline by another better BoK, which can be considered as the heliocentric model for the scientific discipline. Dr. Popperian “scientific method” advocates that, each and every theory must be supported by falsifiable proof and empirical evidence, where the falsifiable doesn’t imply it is flawed, but every theory or fact must be open for testing and/or validation, so that it can be falsified, if and when new counter evidence can be discovered.

Dr. Kuhn never promoted relying on untested or unproven “consensuses” and never advocated that such unproven “consensuses” must be treated as sacred inalienable facts for eternity. Therefore, I see no conflict between the Kuhnian and Popperian philosophies for hard science. In my view, Dr. Kuhn illustrates causes for scientific crisis, where the crisis may be due to flawed “consensuses”, which are treated as self-evident sacred and unquestionable facts for eternity (e.g. as the belief “the Earth is static” was considered to be sacred unquestionable facts for eternity). Unfortunately, even in 21^st century software has many such sacred “consensuses”.

In such scientific crisis, most researchers react as if it is sacrilegious or insulting their intelligence or offending common sense, if any one questions the validity of the “consensus”, which are at the very foundation for the paradox (i.e. deeply entrenched conventional wisdom supported by huge BoK accumulated for a long period). I am sure, Dr. Kuhn never supported this kind of behaviour. He merely said the concepts of new paradigm proposed to replace such paradox are incommensurable. He said such hostile reaction or fierce resistance may be normal (e.g. might be expected form the practitioners of established paradigm). Saying what could happen doesn’t imply supporting such uncivilized acts, when requesting proof for such untested “consensus” (considered to be sacred Truths) or requesting for an opportunity to present “counter evidence” for exposing flawed “consensus”.

The scientific method of Dr. Popper strongly advocates against such sacred unquestionable “consensus” (becoming inalienable Truths for eternity). In the view of Dr. Popper’s view, scientists and scientific method must not tolerate the very existence of such untested sacred unquestionable “consensuses”. Dr. Kuhn illustrates that such untested “consensuses” could be injected and go undetected for long enough time resulting in a crisis, and exposing flawed “consensuses” leads to revolution. So, I see there is no conflict between methods of Dr. Kuhn & Dr. Popper.

Dr. Kuhn illustrated how the scientific disciplines have been progressing, and based on the past experiences he drawn conclusion such as, scientific disciplines goes through normal scientific progress until it ends up in a crisis, which eventually be followed by a revolution and then normal scientific progress until it ends up in another crisis. But this kind of crisis to normal science to crisis could be avoided by following Dr. Popper’s scientific method. There is no sacred “consensus” for eternity and every theory or fact must be supported by publicly documented proof, reasoning and evidence, where the public proof, reasoning and evidence is open for questioning and falsification at any time by anyone.

Any theory or fact can be easily falsified by falsifying its proof. A documented proof invites intellectual debate, investigation and criticism for gaining insights such as degree of accuracy in each of the context or for iteratively improving the precision of knowledge. How could any one falsify sacred “consensus” such as “the Earth is static”, if it doesn’t have any proof? In fact, questioning such “consensus” (believed to be sacred unquestionable “self-evident fact”) insults common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Today, software experts feel, it is disrespectful, arrogant or clever scam to question validity of many such sacred 50 to 60 old “consensuses”, which are the very foundation for the existing CBSD/CBSE paradox.

Unfortunately, software engineering ended up in such a crisis because computer science (i.e. software) has many sacred “consensuses”, which were agreed 50 to 60 years ago. It was inconceivable to invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBD for software 50 to 60 years ago, when Fortran and assembly languages were leading edge technologies. But, advancements in programming languages made it a trivial task to invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBD for software, if the nature and true essence of the CBD and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component is discovered (which is possible but requires up to couple of weeks of investigation by analysing objective reality, facts, empirical evidence and examples).

The software researchers concluded and fiercely defending the 50 to 60 years old untested “consensuses”, as if they are sacred self-evident unquestionable truths for eternity. I have been facing hostile reaction and insults, whenever I try to provide counter-instances to expose the flawed “consensus”, as if it is heresy to question such sacred tenets. Unfortunately, there is no other way (except exposing the flawed consensus) to transform computer science from pseudo-science to hard-science. See top 2-paragraphs at: http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html. 

The Kuhnian paradigm shift from geocentric paradox to heliocentric model transformed basic sciences from pseudo-science into hard-science. Usually the first Kuhnian paradigm shift in any scientific discipline is highly contentious (faces fierce resistance when exposing flawed “consensus”, which are considered sacred self-evident Truths by the establishment). The primeval paradigm of a scientific discipline would be filled with many “consensuses”, because knowledge and technologies were so primitive to validate or question most of them. There would be little or no concrete scientific achievements for providing sound foundation for further inquiry/research.

If one discovers anything subsequently, he must provide a falsifiable proof to be accepted. No discovery can be valid without a proof (backed by repeatable empirical evidence). Hence, no fact or theory can be added to the BoK of any mature scientific discipline without being supported by proof. But such stringent rules are often ignored or overlooked when forming primeval paradigm (i.e. the first paradigm formed when the discipline was in the infancy). For example, no one discovered (e.g. by providing a proof) and no one questioned the lie “the Earth is static” (at the root of geocentric paradox). But the Truth “the Sun is at centre” undergone the most intense scrutiny in the history of science. Likewise, no one discovered (e.g. by providing a proof) and no one yet dared to question the validity of each of the “consensuses” that are at the root of the existing deeply entrenched and huge BoK of the CBSD/CBSE paradox, where the “consensuses” were made up almost out of thin air 50 years ago, (based on wishful thinking or fantasy) without any basis in the reality or fact.

The first Kuhnian paradigm shift of any scientific discipline replaces most of such untested beliefs in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) that painted the old perception of reality (old paradigm) by comprehensive BoK comprising large set of theories or facts (each of which must be supported by proof backed by evidence and reasoning) for painting a new reality (i.e. paradigm), because the huge scepticism and resistance for the establishment ensures rigorous scrutiny of each fact and theory in the BoK for the new paradigm. Even politely requesting for proof for any sacred belief of old paradigm elicits hostile response or snubbing. Trying to present any theory or fact (in support of new paradigm) that appears to be contradicting any sacred belief of old paradigm elicits hostile response or insults. That is the reason the First paradigm shift of any scientific discipline is most complex and contentious.

Likewise, the existing CBSD paradox was rooted in 50 years old unproven sacred “consensuses”. The software experts feel offended or consider that it is sacrilegious, if anyone requests proof for such sacred “consensus”. I expected that, my scientific discoveries about the nature of components and CBD would face the most intense scrutiny. It is not a problem at all. Any real Truth shines more brightly under intense scrutiny (I enjoy such intense scrutiny – I feel, any researcher would enjoy intense scrutiny of his proud discovery). But how could any discovery even survive, if the establishment determined to deliberately ignore, hide or kill it. I didn’t expect this in the 21^st century: Most software experts feel offended by the Truths and they are resorting to insults and personal attacks to silence me for kill the Truth.

Based on my struggles spanning many years to overcome software crisis and my understanding of the causes and effects of software crisis, I can’t see any conflict between philosophies of Prof. Thomas Kuhn and Sir. Karl Popper. Existing state of software crisis matches the symptoms, ill-effects and caused illustrated by Dr. Kuhn. I am also relying on Dr. Popper’s falsifiability to falsify the outdated sacred “consensus” (today perceived to be unquestionable self-evident Truths for eternity).

Dr. Kuhn never advocated or defended such sacred unquestionable “consensus”, but stated that paradigms could end up having unproven “consensus” (perceived to be self-evident facts, when the discipline was at its infancy). Of course, it is understandable why researchers end up relying of such “consensuses”, when the discipline was in its infancy and when very little is known (i.e. nothing is concrete to use as a reference or guiding principles). Dr. Popper not advocated against relying on such theories (i.e. consensus or assumptions), but insisted on documenting a proof (i.e. evidence and reasoning in support of the theory) to validate or falsify. There must be a debate based on observations before reaching each “consensus” – The observations and reasoning debated for reaching a “consensus” can be the proof. The proof can and must be open to falsifiability (if and when new counter evidence can be discovered due to advancements in technologies or scientific BoK).

I see no conflict between the views of Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Popper: In brief Dr. Kuhn sated that, each paradigm might end up with such untested “consensuses” due to certain reasons. Dr. Popper asked to document the reasons (and supporting evidence), so that they reasons can be falsified, if and when possible.

The things once considered inconceivable might become possible due to the advancements in technologies or serendipitous scientific discoveries. In science, there are no sacred unquestionable Truths for eternity. Each of the paradoxical paradigms is rooted in “consensuses” (i.e. unproven beliefs agreed to be “basic principles” that over time morphed into sacred unquestionable Truths as more and more research efforts are invested to evolve a complex paradigm by relying on them). No one ever said that it is desirable to root any scientific discipline (e.g. by relying) on such untested or unproven “consensus” (or received beliefs), because it would end up costing dearly (by diverting research efforts into a wrong path), if they are ended up flawed.

Dr. Kuhn observed that such unproven “consensuses” or “first principles” are defended or protected as if they are sacred unquestionable Truths for eternity, for example, by suppressing novelties (that can be backed by proof), which could expose flawed “consensuses”? Isn’t it sacred duty of scientists to prevent this kind of thing? Researchers are doomed to repeat such huge mistakes, if we don’t learn from such invaluable insights. For example, existing CBSD paradox is rooted in such primordial “received beliefs” (i.e. unproven consensuses perceived to be unquestionable) is an example for such primeval paradigm, which ended up costing a trillion to the world economy by wasting efforts and hard work of software researchers and engineers for perfecting or practicing the geocentric paradox of software engineering.

Both Kuhn and Popper provided highly complementary perspectives (e.g. as two sides of a coin) for better understanding and gaining deeper insights about various states and progress of the BoK for scientific disciplines and scientific method, where Popper promoted ideal scientific method (e.g. by providing guidance for future scientific advancements), while Kuhn describes the state and progress of the BoK for scientific disciplines (by using the historical knowledge and experiences as reference). I feel, each of them provide complementary perspective into the “philosophy of sciences” and “scientific method”, which are extremely valuable to gain deeper insights to comprehend the very nature of scientific knowledge and BoK.

I learned valuable lessons from my unique passionate research spanning 15 years that, any research effort for advancing any discipline would be diverted into a wrong path, when it started relying on flawed “received beliefs”. The discipline end up as a paradox, if huge research efforts are invested for long enough time by relying on the flawed beliefs (without realizing the error) for accumulating huge BoK. Kindly keep in mind mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed. The efforts (and hard work) of researchers (and practitioners of the field) would still be wasting on comprehending the inexplicable epicycles of the geocentric paradox. Today software researchers wasting their efforts and hard work on comprehending the geocentric paradox of software engineering.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Is there a civilized way for exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21st century scientific discipline?

Dear Friends,

Saying the truth “the Sun is at the centre” 500 years ago offended common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Researchers refuse to see or investigate either evidence in support of heliocentric model or counter evidence that could expose the flawed geocentric paradox. How any lie could ever be exposed (e.g. the lie “the Earth is static at the centre” at the root of the geocentric paradox), if research community refuses to look at evidence (e.g. by perceiving it to be arrogant, disrespectful and uncivilized to question the validity of primordial dogmatic “consensus” of the respected researchers or scientists).

Please kindly recall the Galileo’s famous letter to Kepler in 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."

Galileo Galilee’s attempts to demonstrate counter evidence for the geocentric paradox 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 ... I am not a fool, how dare you to insult my intelligence?". Likewise, most experts feel I am insulting their intelligence, if I say purpose or essence of CBD (Component Based Design) is not "reuse". Existing CBSD/CBSE paradox is fundamentally flawed. Today no one else even knows the objective reality about: "what is true essence and power of CBD".

I have been struggling for many years to provide counter evidence to flawed beliefs at the root of the geocentric paradox of software engineering (in general and CBSD/CBSE in particular). The flawed beliefs diverted research efforts in to a wrong path and software researchers have been investing research efforts for 50 years in the wrong path resulted in the infamous software crisis (as the flawed belief “the Earth is static” diverted research into a wrong path 2300 years ago and investing research efforts for 1800 years in the wrong path resulted in geocentric paradox).

I have been struggling for many years to compel software researchers to investigate counter evidence for exposing the flawed beliefs at the root of the software engineering in general and CBSD/CBSE paradox in particular. I tried every method I can think of and so far no civilized method worked. My efforts to expose the Truth are perceived to be arrogant, disrespectful, uncivilized or even heresy.

Could anyone suggest a civilized way to compel software researchers to investigate evidence in support of the heliocentric model of software engineering and counter evidence for the geocentric paradox of software engineering? Is there any legal way that doesn’t involve bribing (i.e. paying handsomely for doing their moral duty of discovering the Truth/facts by investigating evidence) or dragging tax-payer funded research organizations to court to fulfil their moral and ethical obligation of not wasting taxpayer funds on the geocentric paradox of software engineering?

The flawed beliefs at the root of the CBSD paradox resulted in the infamous software crisis, which already cost a trillion dollars to the world economy, and would cost trillions more, if I fail in my effort to expose the root causes for the geocentric paradox of software engineering. I can’t believe the software scientists even in the 21^st century reacting similar to the fanatic scientists in the dark ages.

For example, all the government funded research organizations (e.g. NSF.gov, NIST.gov, NITRD.gov, SEI/CMU or DoD) already wasted many decades and billions of dollars for expanding the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the geocentric paradox of software engineering. Any kind of research efforts in a wrong path is fool’s errand, because mankind’s scientific knowledge (i.e. BoK) would still be stuck in the dark ages, if the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed.

How could any scientist or researcher foolishly insist unproven beliefs or untested opinions are self-evident facts, for example, by refusing to see counter evidence and often resorting to humiliating insults, snubbing or even personal attacks (when politely offer counter evidence that exposes flawed unproven beliefs or untested opinions at the root of the geocentric paradox of software engineering)?

Computer Science can't be a science, if it has many sacred untested beliefs (i.e. dogmatic tenets) and experts feel offended or react as if it is heresy to question the validity of primordial dogmatic tenets created (by “consensus” of wise men) during primeval period of computer science (i.e. between 50 to 60 years ago when Fortran and assembly languages are leading technologies). It was inconceivable to create real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real-CBD for software, which is equivalent to the CBD (Component Based Design) for physical products 50 to 60 years ago (during primeval period of computer science).

Any “consensus”, no matter how elaborate or elegant, is not science. That kind of “consensus” might be justifiable few decades ago, but such “consensus” cannot be treated as inalienable truth/fact for eternity. Such outdated consensus (e.g. beliefs and myths) at the root (i.e. that are very foundation) of any modern scientific discipline must be questioned time to time. If the consensuses are flawed, it leads to scientific crisis and exposing the error results in a Kuhnian paradigm shift.

Is there a civilized way for exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21^st century scientific discipline? How can I keep it civilized, if respected researchers and scientists perceive facts/truth (that contradict flawed “consensus”) are heresy and react uncivilized by resorting to humiliating insults and personal attacks. How can I compel them to act civilized and fulfil their moral and ethical obligations to Truth? Any untested “consensus”, no matter how elaborate or elegant, is not science. Period. Anyone who feels such untested “consensus” as inalienable Truth for eternity and resort to insults must be ashamed to think he is a scientist/researcher.

Best Regards,

Raju

Proof that computer science (Software) is pretend to be (or promoted as) science but has been created and maintained like a religion.

Dear Friends,

What is the fundamental difference between the religions and sciences? My understanding is, we can’t question the validity of sacred beliefs in a religion such as existence of the God or basic religious tenets or dogma? It is a heresy to even try to provide counter evidence to any sacred tenant or dogmatic beliefs.

In science (even in pseudo-science), there are no room for sacred tenets. It is huge violation of the scientific method and basic process. It is mandatory requirement to question the validity and/or demand proof for each and every concept (e.g. theory, observation, fact or principle) included in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the scientific discipline. So it is not hard to prove that software is no more than a religion. I was fooled (by many respected software researchers, scientists and experts) and lead to believe that computer science is not a religion.

If it is not a religion, why is it heresy to questioning the validity of unproven and untested beliefs? The same respected scientists (who fooled me to believe that computer science is not a religion) would react as if it is a blasphemy, if I politely request them, if there is any proof to support their dogmatic opinions or sacred beliefs. They react as if it is a blasphemy, if I try to offer counter evidence to certain basic sacred beliefs (e.g. at the root of existing CBSD/CBDE paradox).

Software easily passes the duck test: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck (e.g. has feathers, webbed feet and satisfies many other aspect), then what are the chances that it is not a duck?

I believe, the religious tenets were defined during primeval times by wise men. Instilling the fear of God (heaven or hell) was the best way for improving many good qualities such as spirituality, ethics and morality of mankind. It might be inconceivable for the wise men that it could create so many bloody conflicts. Of course, religion provides lot of comfort and peace of mind in addition to promoting morality and ethics, if it is used or followed as intended.

I am not against religion but I am against promoting religion of computer science (software) as a science. Software can't be a science, if it is rooted in sacred untested primordial beliefs (i.e. dogmatic tenets) and experts feel offended or react as if it is heresy to question the validity of primordial dogmatic tenets created (by wise men) during primeval period of computer science (i.e. between 50 to 60 years ago when Fortran and assembly languages are leading technologies). It was inconceivable to create real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real-CBD for software, which is equivalent to the CBD (Component Based Design) for physical products 50 to 60 years ago (during primeval period of computer science).

The primordial beliefs were incontrovertible for few decades morphing them to be sacred. But the sacred beliefs are no longer valid, since technological advancements can prove the primordial beliefs to be flawed. The primordial beliefs formed during the primeval period can’t be treated as sacred religious tenets. Unfortunately, most software researchers have been insisting that the primordial beliefs formed during primeval times can’t be questioned or disputed by presenting counter evidence. Many experts readily admit that the tenets are beliefs created by unanimous consent of wise men. Experts insist that no proof is necessary for such sacred beliefs defined by unanimous consent of wise men.

Unfortunately, each year tens of thousands of impressionable computer science students and young researchers have been indoctrinated into the religion of software by fooling them that computer science (software) is a science. They have been brainwashed by using experiences or observations of epicycles (result of relying on flawed primordial sacred beliefs) are reality by using many seminal works such as “mythical man month”, “No silver bullet” or “Big Ball of Mud”.

There is no room for opinions in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) of real science. The existing BoK for computer science contains many untested dogmatic beliefs or sacred unproven opinions. I have been struggling for many years to transform computer science into a science by exposing the flawed beliefs. Researchers refusing to investigate evidence and facts to discover reality for replacing the flawed beliefs by proven concepts. Objective reality is perceived to be heresy because it is contradicting the dogmatic tenets (e.g. as the reality “the Sun is at the center” was perceived to be heresy 500 years ago, because the reality contradicted the dogmatic tenet “the Earth is static at the center).

Each and everything must be considered as an assumption (opinion or belief), if it cannot be supported by falsifiable proof (that can’t be falsified by using any known evidence or exiting knowledge). A falsifiable proof doesn’t imply, it is false, but it can be falsified by demonstrating counter evidence, if and when new counter evidence can be found. Existing religion of software can easily be transformed into a scientific discipline, if software researchers act like scientists (e.g. not offended by asking proof for beliefs perceived to be sacred tenets) and open to investigate counter evidence to expose the flawed beliefs.

The is satirical summary of the state of CBSD (Component Based Design for Software), but the fact is that software rooted in primordial sacred beliefs (instead of facts backed by falsifiable proofs) and many experts react as if it is a heresy to question validity or request proof for the sacred beliefs. If any software expert feels that software is not rooted in primordial sacred beliefs (perceived to be incontrovertible), I humbly request him to prove me wrong. Software must be treated as a religion as long as it is rooted in primordial sacred beliefs.

In science, it is violation of basic scientific rules to insist that any untested or unproven belief is a sacred fact. In real science, nothing can be a fact until it is backed by a proof (which can’t be falsified by existing knowledge and evidence). Ignoring or hiding counter-evidence is unethical and immoral. Many software researchers and scientists insist that many unproven primordial beliefs are sacred facts, and either requesting politely for proof or humbly offering counter evidence is perceived to be arrogant or disrespectful. I have been struggling for many years to present counter evidence to expose flawed primordial beliefs.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri  

My New Year Wish for 2017 is to break free software engineering from the enslavement of "the Elephant Rope Syndrome" (or “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”)

Dear Friends,

Software engineering has been collectively conditioned between 1960s and 1980s by harsh and painful experiences of failures (e.g. infamous software crisis) and entrapped by “The Elephant Rope Syndrome” for past 25 years. The researchers of computer science and software assumed 50 years ago that it is impossible to invent real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real-CBD (Component Based Design) for software, which is equally powerful (and useful) as the CBD for physical products (i.e. equivalent for enjoying the true essence of the CBD).

As a baby elephant is incapable of breaking rope, it is understandable, why it was inconceivable of inventing real-software-components (essential for achieving real CBSD) by the primitive technologies existed 50 years ago and the state of computer science knowledge existed then. As the baby elephant can grow to be a mighty elephant in few decades, software technologies advanced substantially, but now mighty software is enslaved by prejudice & pre-conceived notions, which were conditioned by decades old experiences of painful failures.

The mighty elephant’s perceived limitation and weakness enslaved by the false consciousness of limitations existed in the past (but no longer true). Hence, software engineering has been suffering the Baby Elephant Syndrome by not even making any attempt to break free from the enslavement of things such as the infamous software crisis. For example, the software researchers have been refusing to gain necessary theoretical knowledge by using proven scientific methods for discovering objective reality such as (i) obvious facts about the nature and true essence of the CBD and (ii) nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component.

If the essential properties of the components are {R & S}, no physical part can ever be a component without havening the properties {R & S}. Likewise, no software part can be a real-software-component without having the properties {R & S}. Once such essential properties are discovered, it is a trivial task to invent software-components having the essential properties.

It is impossible to achieve real-CBD by using fake components (i.e. any other kind of parts not having the essential properties). Software researchers are stubbornly refusing to gain necessary knowledge about the nature and objective reality about the components and CBD, by insisting that it is impossible to invent real-software-components and CBD by citing past painful experiences of failures (e.g. decades old things such as “Mythical Man Month” and “No Silver Bullet”).

Software researchers have been brain washed to accept the limitations (existed decades ago and by the past experiences), which are no longer exist since 1990. Based on painful experiences of failures few decades ago (as a baby elephant), software researchers have been foolishly arguing that, even decades of relentless scientific and technological advancements (even after grownup to be a mighty elephant) could never overcome imaginary hurdles such as acquiring necessary knowledge for inventing real-software-components and necessary enabling mechanisms or processes for achieving the real-CBSD.

Today researchers react as if it is a heresy to question the 50 year old unproven or untested myths. Many foolish researchers insisted that, even million years of technological advancements can’t break the rope, as if those unproven myths are proven inalienable laws of nature. In effect, they imply that I am a liar, crazy or even fraud in open forum, when I make the following claims (that are backed by 6 US patents). Don’t they have moral and ethical obligation to give me an opportunity to defend myself, when they imply that I am liar or crazy? I consulted lawyers for filing a defamation case, but the lawyers suggested that the laws and judges are too lenient, so the crony intellectuals can easily get away.

Pioneer-soft discovered necessary knowledge for inventing real-software-components and necessary enabling mechanisms or processes for achieving the real-CBSD. Unfortunately, software researchers refusing to even look at the evidence (e.g. real-software-components and software designed and build by employing CBD), which exposes “the Elephant rope syndrome”. I may have to bribe the software researchers to do their duty, since the researchers abdicated their moral and ethical obligation to address counter-evidence, which helps them overcome “the Elephant rope syndrome” by exposing flawed concepts, theories or observations (of epicycles) being promoted today.

Isn’t it classic example for “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”: If it was inconceivable for the best technologies available (e.g. assembly or Fortran languages) in 1960s (as a baby), it is foolish to insist that it will be inconceivable even in the future (for hundreds of years), even after substantial scientific and technological advancements (grownup to be a mighty elephant).

Unfortunately, researchers foolishly react as if I am a liar or crazy for trying to expose “the Baby Elephant Syndrome” of software researchers or engineering, which already cost trillions of dollars to the world economy and would cost trillions more. Technologies for software engineering advanced sufficiently, by 1990, to break free from “the enslavement”, but researchers have been foolishly refusing to even try to free from the enslavement. Instead they imply that I am a liar or crazy for trying to expose their flawed prejudice and myths.

P.S: Proof backed by evidence and facts can be found at my ResearchGate account: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raju_Chiluvuri4, at my web-site http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html and empirical evidence can be provided by using Pioneer-soft’s GUI-technologies at: http://Pioneer-soft.com

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Would you knowingly risk your career, if openly defending or supporting Truth could ruin reputation or career (e.g. might put your promotion at risk)?

Dear Friends,

            If and when counter-evidence brought to his/her notice for any concepts or theories he has been promoting or supporting, isn’t it a moral and ethical obligation of any researcher to address the counter-evidence? Obviously, it is unethical and dishonest to ignore or hide such counter-evidence for any personal gains. Any scientific or engineering discipline is no different from mythology or a cult, if large number of researchers and scientists deliberately ignore or hide such counter-evidence. What is the difference between a scientist and a cult member?

But what would you do, if openly supporting or acknowledging Truth (i.e. counter-evidence) could ruin your reputation? For example, about 450 years ago, even if a researcher were to realize that “the Earth is not static (at the center)” by investigating the counter-evidence, openly supporting the Truth must have destroyed his/her reputation or even faced criminal persecution and punishment. Isn’t it moral obligation of every researcher to fight against such cult culture?

Please keep in the mind that geocentric paradox had been evolved for over 1500 years (due to relying on a 2000 year old flawed belief “the Earth is static”) and was deeply entrenched conventional wisdom 450 years ago, so saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Assume a critical sub-discipline of your scientific or engineering discipline ended up as the geocentric paradox of your scientific or engineering discipline (e.g. by relying on similar flawed belief).

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”  .. Arthur Schopenhauer.

“all great truths begin as blasphemies”   … George Bernard Shaw

What would you do, if counter-evidence (for concepts or theories you support and rely or use in your work) is brought to your notice? It could ruin your reputation or career (e.g. your promotion might be at risk), If you investigate the counter-evidence and choose to openly support (or acknowledge) the counter-evidence (e.g. recommend others to address the counter-evidence)?

Would you deliberately ignore or hide the counter-evidence to protect your career or reputation, since it is unethical or immoral to ignore or hide the counter-evidence for the geocentric paradox of your discipline?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Isn’t it unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept by ignoring or hiding counter-evidence?

Dear Friends,

The widely accepted ethical obligation and code of conduct among the research communities is: It is unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept (in the theoretical foundation for or Body of Knowledge of any scientific discipline) by deliberately ignoring or hiding counter-evidence. It is a moral and ethical obligation for each and every researcher to address each of the demonstrable counter-evidences for any theory or concept he/she is defending or promoting.

The sacred duty of researchers of each of the scientific or technological disciplines is to investigate evidence for eliminating flawed pieces of knowledge such as theories or concepts form the BoK (Body of Knowledge), for example, if and when irrefutable counter-evidence is presented or demonstrated. Ignoring (even due to prejudice) or hiding (by being complacent) such demonstrable counter-evidence is also unethical abdication of the sacred duty.

Any accepted piece or part of knowledge (e.g. theory or concept in the BoK) could cause irreparable damage, if it is fundamentally flawed. For example, each new piece or part of knowledge would likely be corrupted, if it is added by relying on such fundamentally flawed pieces of knowledge. Such corruption spreads overtime, if the BoK is expanded by adding more and more new pieces or parts of knowledge (by relying on such flawed or corrupted pieces of knowledge), which eventually results in altered perception of reality (e.g. paradoxical paradigm). Also, it is a fool’s errand to rely on such flawed or corrupted BoK (by engineering researchers) for making any useful technological invention. It is the sacred duty and moral obligation of each and every researcher to prevent such insidious spread of corruption and dangerous consequences of such BoK having large chunks of corrupted knowledge.

I am sure every scientist in the world must agree that: The biggest and most well-documented mistake in the history of science is “relying on a flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) without properly testing and/or validating it”. The “scientific method” was formulated and formalized in the 17th century in the light of pain and suffering endured and insights gained from the first-hand experience of putting the research efforts onto the right path by exposing the error. The “scientific method” was formulated particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost: To prevent researchers form relying on flawed assumptions (e.g. rooted in prejudice, fantasy or myths), which are in contradiction to the objective reality.

Answer to this question is objective reality: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system? Relying on the wrong answer (the Earth is static at centre) to this question about 2000 years ago diverted mankind’s research efforts (e.g. for understanding the reality by finding rational explanation) into a wrong path. The research efforts persisted in the wrong path for nearly 1500 years without realizing the error. This resulted in the geocentric paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality.

Software researchers repeated the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same kind of mistake in the 21st century must be shocking.  Even more shocking is that many software researchers reacting not much different from the ignorant fanatics in the dark ages, who actively supported killing of Giordano Bruno and life imprisonment of Galileo. This kind of mistake is not committed by any other discipline in past 400 years. The researchers of software are ignoring or hiding demonstrable counter-evidence that falsifies their theories or concepts.

The answers to these 2 questions are objective realities (1) what is the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/development) for physical products and (2) what is the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. Researches of computer science (software) repeated this kind of cardinal sin nearly 50 years ago by ignoring such objective realities. The myths and assumption at the root of the existing CBSD paradox are in clear contradiction to the objective reality (as the flawed belief/myth “the Earth is static” at the root of geocentric paradox was in clear contradiction to the reality).

The nature and properties of so called software components and CBSD (CBD for software) were blindly defined (based on fantasy, prejudice and wishful thinking) 50 years ago without any consideration to the objective reality. The research efforts have been persisting in the wrong path for 50 years without realizing the error. This resulted in existing CBSD paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality. A huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for 50 years comprising tens of thousands of published papers and thousands of books world over backed by epicycles of software as empirical evidence in support of the geocentric paradox of the software.

I have been doing research passionately (ever since I accidentally stumbled onto a fascinating new kind of software components 15 years ago), which lead to the discoveries of nature and reality such as true essence of CBD and essential properties of physical components. My patented inventions are rooted in such discovery of the reality and facts about the components and CBD.

I informed hundreds of respected researchers and leading scientists about the nature and true essence of real-CBD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design and provided demonstrable counter-evidence, which demonstrates that it is possible to invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBD for software (that exposes flawed myths at the root of existing paradox) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

The above evidence clearly contradicts the concepts in published papers and books. Unfortunately, many respected researchers have been using so many unsubstantiated dishonest excuses to evade their ethical or moral obligation to address counter-evidence. Promoting any concepts or theories without addressing known counter-evidence is unethical and it is fraud to deliberately hiding such counter-evidence. Even after knowing the possible evidence that prove their concepts and theories are no more than epicycles of software engineering’s geocentric paradox, they continue to promote their concepts and theories by deliberately ignoring the clear counter-evidence.

Empirical falsification is proven scientific method for detecting flawed pieces of knowledge and for eliminating corrupted chunks of knowledge in the BoK. Deliberately ignoring or hiding demonstrable empirical counter-evidence is abdication of moral and ethical obligations. Software researchers committed or repeated a huge mistake. Exposing it leads to software engineering revolution. I can’t believe, researchers in the 21^st century repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history. More shocking is they are reacting no differently from the fanatics in the dark ages. Even after knowing counter evidence, many choose to ignore the evidence to promote the geocentric paradox of software. Initially I thought they were complacent and/or prejudice. But after so many attempts spanning many years, I am beginning to think that they have abdicated their sacred and ethical duty.

How any flawed piece of knowledge could ever be falsified, if the researchers deliberately ignore or hide empirical counter-evidence that can clearly falsify the piece of knowledge? Isn’t it unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept by ignoring or hiding counter-evidence? This kind of behavior must not be tolerated by honest and genuine researchers in the interest of scientific and technological progress. Such behavior causes irreparable damage to BoK, by injecting and promoting corruption.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists continue to rely on flawed myths which blatantly violate objective reality by ignoring clear warnings?

Dear Friends,

I am sure almost every scientist in the world must agree that: The biggest and most well-documented mistake in the history of science is “relying on a flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) without validating it”. The “scientific method” was formalized and formulated in the 17^th century particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost by the very researchers and philosophers who had endured pain, suffering and deep insights gained form the first-hand experience of facing violent resistance in exposing such error (or flawed perception of reality).

Software researchers repeated exactly the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same kind of mistake in the 21^st century must be shocking to anyone.  Even more shocking is that many software researchers reacting not much different from the ignorant fanatics in the dark ages, who actively supported killing of Giordano Bruno and life imprisonment of Galileo. Even the ignorant fanatics in the 16^th and early 17^th century may be justified by saying that there was no mature proven “scientific method”.

Answer to this question is objective reality: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system? Relying on the wrong answer (the Earth is static at centre) to this question about 2000 years ago diverted mankind’s research efforts (e.g. for understanding the reality by finding rational explanation) into a wrong path. The research efforts persisted in the wrong path for nearly 1500 years without realizing the error. This resulted in the geocentric paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality.

The “scientific method” was formulated and formalized in the 17th century in the light of pain and suffering endured and insights gained from the first-hand experience of putting the research efforts onto a right path by exposing the error. The “scientific method” was formulated particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost: To prevent researchers form blindly relying on flawed assumptions (e.g. rooted in prejudice, fantasy or myths), which are in clear contradiction to the objective reality.

Researches of computer science (software) repeated this kind of cardinal sin nearly 50 years ago. The answers to these 2 questions are objective realities (1) what is the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/development) for physical products and (2) what is the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. The myths and assumption at the root of the existing CBSD paradox are in clear contradiction to the objective reality (as the flawed belief/myth “the Earth is static” at the root of geocentric paradox was in clear contradiction to the objective reality).

The nature and properties of so called software components and CBSD (CBD for software) were blindly defined (based on fantasy, prejudice and wishful thinking) 50 years ago without any consideration to the objective reality. The research efforts have been persisting in the wrong path for 50 years without realizing the error. This resulted in existing CBSD paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality. A huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising tens of thousands of published papers and thousands of books world over backed by epicycles of software as empirical evidence in support of the geocentric paradox of the software.

No one in the world ever tried to discover objective reality or answers to the above two basic questions, which must be at the root of real-CBSD. Also Most of the researchers are refusing to know the objective reality. Deliberately ignoring the objective reality and facts is widely considered to be unethical and even scientific fraud. Once the facts are in the open or clearly informed, it is a fraud, if any scientist or researcher continue to promote his theories or concepts, by hiding or deliberately ignoring any evidence, facts or objective reality that contradicts his proposed theories or concepts. Any discovery of fact or theory is valid only if it can’t be falsified. So, it is a fraud to promote such fact or theory by hiding or deliberately ignoring contradicting evidence, facts or objective reality.

We discovered the objective reality about the CBD and components backed by evidence and facts. Today it is impossible to deny the objective reality about the CBD and the objective reality about the components. For example, in light of the objective reality (i.e. the Sun is at the centre), isn’t it obvious that geocentric paradox was rooted in fundamentally flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static at the centre)? Likewise, in light of the objective reality about the CBD and components, it is obvious that the exiting BoK (Body of Knowledge), about so called software components and CBSD paradox, is rooted fundamentally flawed assumptions (e.g. prejudice or myths). Existing definitions and perceptions are in clear contradiction to the objective reality.

If you are working with elephants at a Zoo, when any other animal (e.g. pig or rat) is shown to you, would you insist that it is an elephant? Likewise, no one would ever agree that any of the kind software components known today is a component, if he knows objective reality about the physical components (such as nature and essential properties). If you working with horses for months at a racecourse, when any other animal (e.g. cat or rat) is shown to you, would you insist that it is a horse? Likewise, no one would ever agree that any of the kind CBD for Software known today is real-CBD, if he knows the objective reality about the CBD of physical products (such as nature and true essence).

Computer science was in its infancy 50 years ago and many things were unknown, so software researchers made many assumptions based on (their prejudice and wishful thinking) preconceived notions that computer science was a branch of mathematics and cannot be a real science. This became self-fulfilling prophesy by making computer science a fake science, because software researchers (who are predominantly having background in mathematics) have been working under such flawed preconceived notions and biases of mathematicians (e.g. mathematicians are only trained in “” not trained in the “scientific method”).

The geocentric paradox was defended by using observations such as epicycles and retrograde motions, without realizing they were using illegal circular logic. This is what has been happening in the computer science as well. The researchers are using countless epicycles (e.g. tens of thousands published papers and thousands of books in the existing paradoxical BoK) accumulated for past 50 years for defending the flawed myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox. The experiences and observations of epicycles and retrograde motions were real (i.e. anyone could observe by standing on so called static Earth at the centre) but we know what went wrong.

The same thing has been happening in the software. Without realizing that they are using illegal circular logic, many researchers are using the experiences and observations of the existing CBSD paradox (i.e. altered/flawed perception of reality) to justify the myths at the root of the existing CBSD paradox. Many seminal works such as “mythical man month” or “no silver bullet” further strengthen the conformational bias. The software crisis is real in the existing CBSD paradox as the epicycles were real in the geocentric paradox. It is impossible explain the illusion of such epicycles without going to the root cause. But saying “the Sun at centre” was perceived to be heresy and repugnant 500 years ago. Likewise, questioning the validity of myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox are perceived to be repugnant.

Except researchers of computer science (software), no other 21st century researchers of any discipline refuse to know or deliberately ignore objectivity reality. Unfortunately many software researchers chose to rely on such myths, even when facts and objective reality is demonstrated. Software researchers assumed computer science can’t be a real science, so software researchers put no effort to use “scientific method” for acquiring necessary knowledge essential for addressing many problems such as real-CBSD or Real-Artificial-Intelligence. Such problems can’t be solved without discovering objective reality about components, CBD, neurons or neural networks by using “scientific method”.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri