tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49402885611540333292024-02-08T07:53:54.550-08:00The sacred duty of scientific research and researchers is pursuit of absolute truth.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-86938840320621588262017-01-29T23:45:00.000-08:002017-01-29T23:45:22.200-08:00The complementary perspective of “scientific methods” of Popper and Kuhn for comprehending the nature of scientific BoK (Body of Knowledge)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Dear
Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>th</sup>
century by relying on 2300 years old “consensus” “the Earth is static”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>th</sup> 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):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>st</sup> century software
has many such sacred “consensuses”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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: </span><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html" target="_blank">http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html</a>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>st</sup> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-29353062126433341482017-01-22T04:10:00.003-08:002017-01-22T04:10:39.775-08:00Is there a civilized way for exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21st century scientific discipline?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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 eth<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a>ical
obligation of not wasting taxpayer funds on the geocentric paradox of software
engineering?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>st</sup>
century reacting similar to the fanatic scientists in the dark ages.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Is there a civilized way for
exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21<sup>st</sup> 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? </span><span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.</span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Raju<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-11877426437760294882017-01-10T23:57:00.000-08:002017-01-11T02:34:57.350-08:00Proof that computer science (Software) is pretend to be (or promoted as) science but has been created and maintained like a religion.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Software
easily passes the duck test: </span><span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #111111; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Raju S Chiluvuri <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-20416026450078128712016-12-25T04:39:00.000-08:002016-12-26T00:32:12.843-08:00My New Year Wish for 2017 is to break free software engineering from the enslavement of "the Elephant Rope Syndrome" (or “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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”). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><u><i><span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>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).</b></span></i></u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">P.S</span></u></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">:
Proof backed by evidence and facts can be found at my ResearchGate account: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raju_Chiluvuri4" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raju_Chiluvuri4</a>,
at my web-site <a href="http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html" target="_blank">http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html</a>
and empirical evidence can be provided by using Pioneer-soft’s GUI-technologies
at: <a href="http://pioneer-soft.com/" target="_blank">http://Pioneer-soft.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Raju S Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-58892650096814375182016-12-11T08:54:00.001-08:002016-12-11T08:54:28.946-08:00Would you knowingly risk your career, if openly defending or supporting Truth could ruin reputation or career (e.g. might put your promotion at risk)?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Dear
Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> 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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">“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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">“all great truths begin as blasphemies” … George Bernard Shaw<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">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)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-49196760908885569092016-11-27T04:45:00.002-08:002016-11-27T04:49:02.458-08:00Isn’t it unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept by ignoring or hiding counter-evidence?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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).</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">I
informed hundreds of respected researchers and leading scientists about the
nature and true essence of real-CBD: </span><span style="color: #0563c1;"><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design</a>
</span><span lang="EN-IN">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) </span><span style="color: #0563c1;"><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming</a></span><span lang="EN-IN"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>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. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">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. <span lang="EN-IN">Software
researchers committed or repeated a huge mistake. Exposing it leads to software
engineering revolution.</span><span lang="EN-IN"> </span><span lang="EN-IN">I can’t
believe, researchers in the 21<sup>st</sup> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-IN">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? </span>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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Best
Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Raju S
Chiluvuri</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-46581319389302232132016-11-18T22:52:00.000-08:002016-11-18T23:37:04.697-08:00Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists continue to rely on flawed myths which blatantly violate objective reality by ignoring clear warnings?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>th</sup> 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).</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Software
researchers repeated exactly the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same
kind of mistake in the 21<sup>st</sup> 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<sup>th</sup> and early 17<sup>th</sup>
century may be justified by saying that there was no mature proven “scientific
method”.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">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. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">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. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">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”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Raju S
Chiluvuri</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-68166462382932319102016-11-11T19:54:00.000-08:002016-11-11T19:54:26.416-08:00I disparately need help: How can I put research in the right path, which ended up in a wrong path due to mistakes committed 50 years ago?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The biggest mistake in the history of science (committed
by researchers) was relying on untested and unproven flawed myth (i.e. the
Earth is static) for understanding the reality about nature. Exposing this
error led to the greatest scientific revolution in the history of mankind, but
many great researchers had to endure huge pain and suffering during 16<sup>th</sup>
and early 17<sup>th</sup> century for exposing this error. Researchers learned
many valuable lesson (from to the pain and suffering) that relying on a flawed
myth diverts research efforts into a wrong path.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The scientific methods were formulated and formalized
(e.g. by major players in the scientific revolution Galileo, Descartes etc.) in
the 17<sup>th</sup> century in the light (i.e. firsthand experience) of pain
and suffering endured for exposing the error (at the root of the infamous
scientific crisis due to then prevailing geocentric paradox) to prevent the
repeat of this kind of error at any cost. This kind of errors side track
research efforts into a wrong path, hence must be avoided at any cost: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is no exception to this rule: Research efforts
of any scientific discipline ends up in a wrong path, if researchers started
relying on a fundamentally flawed assumption/myths. If the research effort are
invested for advancing by accumulating scientific or theoretical BoK (Body of
Knowledge) in such a wrong path (without detecting the error), the accumulated
BoK (e.g. retrograde motions and epicycles) fundamentally alters the perception
of reality of researches and resulting in a paradoxical paradigm and deeply
entrenched conventional wisdom (which is in clear contradiction to the
objective reality). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> For
example, the untested and unproven flawed assumption (i.e. the Earth is static)
led the research efforts into a wrong path about 2000 years ago. The research
effort are invested for advancing or accumulating scientific or theoretical BoK
(Body of Knowledge) in such a wrong path (without detecting the error) for
about 1500 years that resulted in accumulation of the BoK (e.g. retrograde
motions and epicycles), which fundamentally alters the perception of reality of
researches and resulting in geocentric paradoxical paradigm and deeply
entrenched conventional wisdom (which is in clear contradiction to the
objective reality – Existing BoK for heliocentric paradigm). It altered the
perception of reality so mush so, in the 16<sup>th</sup> & early 17<sup>th</sup>
century saying anything that contradicted the myth (i.e. Earth is static)
offended commonsense. For example, researchers even felt insulted by the truth
and many of them viciously attacked anyone (e.g. Galilio and Giordano Bruno) tried
to expose the Truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> We
all assume this kind of thing could never happen in the 21<sup>st</sup>
century. Unfortunately software researches repeated exactly this kind of
mistake 50 years ago, which diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The
research effort are invested for advancing or accumulating scientific or
theoretical BoK (Body of Knowledge) in such a wrong path (without detecting the
error) for about 50 years that resulted in accumulation of the BoK, which fundamentally
alters the perception of reality of researches and resulting in existing CBSD
paradoxical paradigm and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom (which is in
clear contradiction to the objective reality – the real CBD). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many times more research effort has been invested in
accumulating many times more elaborate BoK for existing CBSD paradoxical
paradigm during past 50 years than the research effort invested for 1500 years
for in accumulating BoK for geocentric paradoxical paradigm. The shocking fact
is, the researchers even in the 21<sup>st</sup> century feel offended by the
Truth (if the Truth contradicts their unproven flawed myths) and reacting no
differently that the research community in the 16<sup>th</sup> and early 17<sup>th</sup>
century.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Is it hard to understand that it is wrong to rely on
untested and unproven myths for advancing our knowledge and understanding by accumulating
and expanding BoK (body of Knowledge)? Is it hard to understand that relying on
flawed myth diverts their research efforts into a wrong path, which certainly
leads to a paradoxical paradigm, if the BoK were expanded for long enough
period without realizing the error?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Is it acceptable, if any researcher in 21<sup>st</sup>
century feel offended by the Truth (that contradict their altered perception of
reality) and resort to personal attacks or unethical tactics to humiliate
anyone trying to expose the error? The 50 years old assumptions (e.g. unproven
prejudice) and definitions (e.g. for so called software components) at the root
of software engineering in general and CBSD in particular fundamentally flawed,
which diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The software researchers
have been accumulating and expanding the BoK in the wrong path for past 50
years (without realizing the error), which resulted in the existing CBSD
paradoxical paradigm and altered perception of reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is only one right path for any scientific
discipline such as physics, which must go through flawless facts such as “the
Sun is at the center”, universal gravity, Newton’s three of motion and many
other proven scientific discoveries and accepted theories during past few
centuries. If there is any accepted theories have errors and relying on such
theory diverts research efforts into a wrong path. Mankind’s scientific and
technological progress ends up in a crisis, if the research efforts persistent
in the wrong path for long enough (without realizing the error) and accumulated
large enough BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on the flawed theory (or myths
perceived to be facts).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mankind cannot afford to repeat this kind of mistake
again and again. One must endure huge pain and suffering, if he tries to expose
such kind of errors (because the respected researchers and scientists even in
the 21 century have been reacting no differently than the researchers in the
dark ages of science 16<sup>th</sup> century and early 17<sup>th</sup>
century). I have been enduring humiliating insults, snubbing and personal
attacks, if I try hard to expose the mistakes in the theoretical foundation at
the root of exiting software engineering paradigm in general and CBSD (Component
Based Software Development) in particular.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I cannot give up this noble effort (despite
humiliations and suffering inflicted by incompetent or fake scientists),
because research efforts of tens of thousands of researchers have been already wasted
for past few decades on the geocentric paradox of software engineering and if I
fail, next generations of young software researchers continue to waste hard
work and researcher efforts for many more decades in pursuit of fool’s errand
(i.e. perfecting the retrograde motions and epicycles of the geocentric paradox
of software engineering).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This mistake already cost trillions to world economy
and would end up costing trillions more, if I fail. It is well known that
computers in general and software in particular playing increasingly vital role
in every aspect of mankind and particularly in accelerating the research efforts
in every discipline of science and technology. Hence solving software crisis
(by exposing the error) would have far researching implications in every
scientific and technological progress (e.g. in the efforts of each and every researcher
in this world sooner than later). So kindly help me in my noble effort, which certainly
help progress in your discipline.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Raju S Chiluvuri</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-80117445014588232292016-11-05T23:45:00.000-07:002016-11-05T23:50:25.416-07:00Why many respected scientist feel it is a fraud/scam or crime to request for proof or question the validity of untested dogmatic myth?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">About 2000 years ago research community erroneously
concluded that “the Earth is static”. The research community relied on such
error (i.e. dogmatic myth) for understanding the reality, which diverted their
research efforts into a wrong path. These research efforts spanning next 1500
years resulted in evolution of a complex geocentric paradox (e.g. fundamentally
altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction of the reality)
and a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom backed by huge BoK (Body of
Knowledge).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately saying the Truth “the Sun is at center”
500 years ago perceived to be insulting the common sense and deeply entrenched
conventional wisdom. Saying or implying anything that disputed or disagreed
with such dogmatic myth “the Earth is static” was perceived to be arrogant,
disrespectful or even fraud/scam. Researchers who questioned the myth (e.g. by
saying anything that implied that the Earth is moving) were imprisoned or even
killed during 16<sup>th</sup> and early 17<sup>th</sup> century (now we call
this period Dark Ages of Science). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is impossible to put research efforts onto the
right path without exposing this error. Mankind still would be in the dark
ages, if the research efforts were not put on the right path by exposing the
error. How is it possible to put the research efforts on the right path, if the
research community perceives that it is a scam/fraud to say any thing that
disputes or disagrees with such dogmatic myth? Of course, many researches and
scientists would resort to humiliating insults and personal attacks against
anyone, if he/she is doing something that is perceived to be fraud/scam.
Computer Science (Software) is still in the dark ages of science, because
respected scientists and researchers of computer science (software) learned
nothing from such painful history during the dark ages of science.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately, software researchers 50 years ago
erroneously concluded that the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based
Design/Development) for software is building each product by assembling
reusable and/or standardized software components from 3<sup>rd</sup> party
component vendors. They used following analogy to summarize the nature and true
essence of CBD: The hardware designers design and build computers by assembling
reusable (or COTS – Commercially off the Shelf) components from 3<sup>rd</sup>
party component venders. Such reusable software parts were even referred to as
Software-ICs by many respected researchers and thought leaders.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The researchers relied on such error for achieving
equivalent CBD by inventing such so called software components, which diverted their
research efforts into a wrong path. Investing research efforts for past 50
years in a wrong path resulted in evolution of a complex software engineering
paradox (e.g. fundamentally altered perception of reality, which is in clear
contradiction of the reality we know in the physical world such as CBD of
physical products). Today research community refusing to explore any other
path, if the proposed path is in contradiction to their flawed perception of
reality and their dogmatic myths. In fact, many researchers today even perceive
such proposal to be a fraud/scam.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately respected researchers of 21<sup>st</sup>
century are reacting no differently then the researchers in the dark ages of
science. Today it is perceived to be arrogant, repugnant or even fraud/scam to
say anything that is in contradistinction to their altered perception of
reality and dogmatic myths (e.g. large reusable software parts are components,
and using such so called software components is CBD). But it is impossible to
put research efforts on the right path without exposing the myths. No
meaningful progress is possible for achieving real CBD until the research
efforts are put on the right path by exposing the error.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The reality and facts about real-CBD, such as
implementing over 90% of the features and functionality is custom replaceable
components. – This is clear contradiction to the retrograde motions and
epicycles of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and CBD paradox exists
today. It is impossible to achieve gestalt-shift into new paradigm without
contradicting the retrograde motions and epicycles of deeply entrenched
conventional wisdom of the existing CBSD paradox. But any attempt to expose the
error is perceived to be scam/fraud. Today no one even know what the reality is,
and consider that it is fraud/scam, if any one requests them for an opportunity
to provide proof for the Reality, since the reality disagrees (e.g. is in clear
contradiction) with the altered perception of reality (filed with the
retrograde motions and epicycles of software).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How can I expose flawed dogmatic myths at the root of
Body of Knowledge for computer science (software) without being perceived to be
a scam/fraud?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-63217596849357563142016-10-21T02:18:00.002-07:002016-10-21T02:18:38.023-07:00Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists feel repugnant when requested to not violate the “scientific method” for acquire theoretical knowledge?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Isn’t it fraud (if not
crime) against scientific and technological progress, if scientists/researchers
blatantly violate well established and proven “scientific method” </span><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method</a> to acquire and include new knowledge in the theoretical foundation
of any discipline for expanding its BoK (Body of Knowledge). Certain basic
concepts in the BoK for software are nothing more than fiction rooted in
wishful thinking. Relying on such flawed concepts or knowledge for
technological advancement is violation of basic logic and even common sense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The purpose of scientific
research is discovering new pieces of knowledge (e.g. facts, concepts or
theories that can’t be falsified by using existing knowledge) for expanding the
boundaries of human knowledge by adding the new knowledge to the BoK (i.e.
theoretical foundation for the scientific discipline). Each piece of knowledge
in the BoK must be supported by falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify
using exciting evidence or knowledge); and must be removed from the BoK, if and
when new evidence can falsify the proof. The purpose of engineering or
technological research is relying on the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation
acquired by using scientific method) for either inventing new things or
innovation for improving existing inventions).</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Any knowledge added to the
BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating the scientific method might be invalid
and corrupted. Any new pieces of knowledge gained by relying such invalid or
corrupted knowledge will be corrupted. Such BoK (theoretical foundation) would
insidiously dangerous for engineering research. It is impossible to make any
useful invention or innovation by relying on such corrupted knowledge. Most
inventions are made by rely on multiple pieces of knowledge in the BoK. It is
very unlikely for any technological research to be successful, even if some of
the pieces of knowledge is corrupted. For example, is it possible to invent
computer chips, by being clueless about the nature of electrons? Software
researchers trying to invent CBD for software by being clueless about natures/properties
of the CBD and components.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">How progress of any scientific
discipline research derailed (ends up in crisis): If research community makes a
mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path.
This was exactly what had happened in case of geocentric paradigm for about 1500
years, when researchers made a mistake by assuming that the Earth is static
2000 years ago. Exactly similar mistake was repeated nearly 50 years ago by researchers
of computers science (software): By defining that any reusable and/or
standardized software parts are components for software products (without
giving any consideration to reality/fact, but based on wishful thinking/fiction).
The researchers also defined that the objective of the CBSD (Component Based
Design for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The assumption made 2000
years ago that “the Earth is static” was an error. Relying on the error led research
efforts in a wrong path for next 1500 years. This resulted in fundamentally
altered perception reality, so much so, the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre)
was perceived to be repugnant/heresy. The researchers in 17<sup>th</sup>
century had to make huge sacrifices to expose this error. To prove that it was
an error, they had to find Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) and prove the
Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the
scientific knowledge by overcoming the scientific crisis. Copernicus discovered
that “the Sun is at the centre”, which eventual proven (e.g. by Kepler, Galileo
and Newton) to be a fact. Exposing the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre, which
initially perceived to be repugnant/heresy) put the research efforts in the
right path, which resulted in the greatest scientific revolution in the
history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Mankind’s scientific
knowledge would still be in crisis, if that error were not yet exposed. The
experience and suffering endured by 17<sup>th</sup> century scientists/researchers
to expose the error to overcome the scientific crisis helped them formalize and
formulate “scientific method”, particularly to avoid similar kind of foolish mistake
(i.e. relying on unproven assumptions that are rooted in myths or wishful
thinking). Except computer science, no other modern scientific discipline violated
the “scientific method”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Except the researchers of computer
science, so far no other scientific discipline repeated similar kind of foolish
error. The errors are: (1) Assumption made nearly 50 years ago that, reusable
and/or standardized software parts are components (which is in clear
contradiction to reality/fact we know about physical components – Most physical
components are custom designed to meet unique needs of its target product) and (2)
blindly defining CBSD (CBD for Software) is building software by assembling
such fake components. Such untested errors led the research efforts in a wrong
path and resulted in fundamentally altered perception of reality (and infamous
software crisis), so much so, our discoveries of Truth perceived to be heresy
and repugnant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I have been enduring
humiliating insults, snubs and personal attacks, if I try to expose this error
by using Truth: I discovered Truth for putting the research efforts in the
right path for expanding the scientific knowledge and for overcoming the
scientific crisis. I used the “scientific method” to discover that the reality
for CBD of any given product: The reality for CBD can be broadly summarized as
implementing about 90% of the features and functionality in un-pluggable/re-pluggable
components, which are custom designed to satisfy unique need of the given
product, where the replaceable component are optimal sized parts that can be
easily un-pluggable (e.g. for redesign it individually) and re-pluggable (e.g.
after testing it individually outside the product).</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I realized that, I must
invent right kind of software component that are capable of enabling real-COP
(Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (i.e. CBD for Software
Products), where real CBSD is implementing over 90% of the features and
functionality (i.e. code) in replaceable software components, which can be
easily un-plugged (e.g. for redesign it individually free from spaghetti code)
and re-plugged (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product). I used
“scientific method” to discover the essential properties uniquely and
universally shared by each and every physically component in the world. This
knowledge of reality (acquired by using “scientific method”) allowed me to
experiment for many years to invent real software components (having the
necessary essential properties) for achieving real-CBSD.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Anyone can make these
discoveries on their own by employing “scientific methods”. Unfortunately, most
experts feel, it is repugnant, if I request them to use “scientific methods” for
discovering the Truth/facts by investigating the objective reality about the
nature and essence of the CBD of physical products and nature and properties
that are essential for physical components to achieve real CBD. Is it heresy or
repugnant: Asking to gain valid knowledge by using proven “scientific methods”?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What is real Science? What
are the basic requirement for any discipline to be a real science? Ans: Using
“scientific methods” for investigating evidence and/or conduct experiments to
discover new pieces or parts of knowledge (i.e. facts, concepts or theories
that can’t be falsified) for expanding the BoK. How any scientific discipline
could end-up a fake science? Obvious answer is: Expanding its BoK (i.e.
theoretical foundation) by adding more and more new pieces or parts of
knowledge created by violating the “scientific method”. The “scientific method”
requires that, each piece of knowledge added to the BoK must be supported by a
falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify by using existing knowledge); and
the piece of the knowledge must be deleted from the BoK, if and when new
evidence surfaces that can falsify the proof.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Computer Science has been
adding invalid or corrupted knowledge by violating the “scientific methods”. Many
parts of the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for software) were never
supported by any proof and can be easily falsified. Hence computer science ended
up being a fake science. How is it possible to transform a fake science into a
real science? Just follow the “scientific methods” to find and falsify pieces
or parts of knowledge created by violating the basic “scientific methods” and replace
each of them with pieces or parts of knowledge created by employing “scientific
methods” (if and when possible). Also remove each piece of the knowledge (that
can’t be replaced), if it is not possible to support by irrefutable proof and evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">How any scientific discipline
ends up in a crisis/paradox: If research community makes a mistake, relying on
the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. No exception to
this simple rule. This was exactly what happened in case of geocentric paradox.
This was exactly what happened 50 years ago, when scientists set the goal for
CBSE is building applications by assembling reusable components. Isn’t it
obvious that the assumption is flawed? This assumption was never even tested. The
17<sup>th</sup> century researchers (e.g. Galileo and Descartes) formulated the
scientific method to prevent this kind of error at any cost: Investing research
efforts by blindly relying on unproven and untested myths for expanding the
BoK. Except software researchers, no one else committed this kind of monumental
mistake since 17<sup>th</sup> century.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The truth (The Sun is at centre)
perceived to be repugnant/heresy in the dark ages. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Scientists
explained the persecution of Truth by saying: It was dark ages for science and
insisting that we learned valuable lessons from the painful experience, and
insist that great philosophers of 17<sup>th</sup> century formalized
“Scientific Method” for preventing such mistake again, which has been evolving
ever since and matured. What excuse software scientist could find to explain
repeat of exactly similar kind of mistake in the 21<sup>st</sup> century,
except admitting gross negligence, pure incompetence, scandalous or even fraud?
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Are we still in
the dark age for science? I can’t understand why scientists in the 21<sup>st</sup>
century consider that it is heresy and/or repugnant (resorting to humiliating
snubbing or personal attacks), when requested to use “scientific method” to
investigate the objective reality to discover facts/Truth?</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">There is no better tool than
“scientific method” to investigate the objective reality for discovering
facts/Truth? No real scientist can refute these scientific methods, even if
they perceive our discoveries to be repugnant initially. Any researcher denies
these facts and scientific method is certainly incompetent and may be even a
fraud. Except software researchers, no other scientist or scientific discipline
violate scientific method knowingly and so blatantly/foolishly. Many software
researchers blindly insist that it is impossible to fallow scientific method.
They are absolutely wrong. We made our revolutionary discoveries of Truth/facts
by strictly following the scientific method. We are only asking the software
researchers to strictly follow the scientific method, just like researchers of
any other discipline in the world. Isn’t it a shame and scandal, if any
scientist feels that, asking him to not violate the proven scientific method is
repugnant? Our scientific discoveries will transform computer science into a
real science and our inventions transform software engineering into real
engineering.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Toady computer science is a
fake science because it has been blatantly violating scientific method. No
discipline can be a real science, if it has been acquiring knowledge (for
expanding its BoK) by violating scientific method. There are no exceptions to
this universal rule. The theoretical foundation (i.e. BoK) created by researchers
of computers science for inventing CBSD (or AI) can’t be an exception to this
rule. The knowledge created and added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation)
by violating scientific methods are invalid. No useful technological inventions
can be made by relying on such invalid or corrupted knowledge.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The discovery that “the Sun
is at the centre” was perceived to be repugnant. Mankind still would be in the
dark ages, if that error were not yet exposed. It is impossible to make any
meaningful progress, if the BoK was filled with such corrupted knowledge. Today
my discoveries (made by strictly following scientific process) are perceived to
be repugnant. But software researchers and industry (i) have no choice but to
follow the scientific method for acquiring necessary knowledge (that is
essential for addressing many unsolved problems in software) and (ii) must rely
only on the discoveries made by strictly following the scientific methods.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-74563973157903338982016-10-05T23:25:00.001-07:002016-10-05T23:25:13.301-07:00How to expose a shocking scandal that has been plaguing computer science?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Summary of the Scandal: It
is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved computer science (software)
problems without expanding the theoretical foundation by acquiring certain kind
of missing pieces of essential knowledge. Example for unsolved problems include
real-CBD (Component Based Design) or real-AI (Artificial Intelligence). Certain
kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge (to address certain unsolved
problems) can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software
researchers have been insisting that computer science is a branch/sub-domain of
mathematics and refusing to use any other methods (except mathematics) for
acquiring knowledge for expanding the theoretical foundation in order to
facilitate software inventions for solving any unsolved problems. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Isn't common sense: If one
needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try
to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could anyone
draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without
having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a
landmark? If one needs to paint (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know
what it is and how it works or looks like? For
example, a painter could say whether he can pain XYZ or not, only after seeing
XYZ. The software researchers have no clue what is XYZ (e.g. real CBD), but
insist it is impossible to invent XYZ (e.g. real-CBD for software). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Without ever
even trying, how can anyone insist that knowledge acquired by using scientific
methods is useless for addressing such unsolved problems? Isn’t it (i.e. refusing
to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge) shocking and
scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven
scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved
problems? I can prove that it is a trivial task to invent solutions for few
unsolved problems, if such missing pieces of knowledge is acquired by using scientific
methods.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Kindly allow me
to illustrate this by using an example: For example, the infamous software
crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if
researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about
things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of
physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components. </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The reason for
the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved
by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating
spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other
product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers
of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For
example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products
such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models
of next generation jet-fighters.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The essential
properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and
universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If
the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods),
it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential
properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real
CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by
eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable
proof backed by evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<i><u><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods
to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is
essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved
problems of software</span></u></i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific
methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing
frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for
gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a
branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The scientific methods
can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing
knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved
problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many
kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits
on an integrated circuits today (</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">) and compare that to number
of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Even a honey-bee
can manoeuvre many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We
might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers
build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to
emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural
instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary
pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and
functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed
and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature
and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand,
scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such
knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The research
effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing
real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources,
equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and
rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented
my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a
software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or
diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical
components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing
real software components. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I have made such
simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using
scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is
openly provided in my web-site </span><a href="http://real-software-components.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">http://real-software-components.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> and in my ResearchGate
account. We (i.e. </span><a href="http://pioneer-soft.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">http://pioneer-soft.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">) built first and only GUI-platform
in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java
developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for
achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to
prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved
problems.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I don’t have the
resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments
for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural
networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial
Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment
for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and
government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced
for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do
research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific
methods).</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">To invent
solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the
researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific
methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI,
which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling
many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using
scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been
stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to
gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions.
Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Many software
researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a
branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of
science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for
acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such
inventions): </span><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Please kindly
remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for
scientific or engineering BoK) can withstand even the most rigorous validation
and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter
and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation.
But how such truth/reality can prevail if every respected researcher tries to
cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by
refusing to see the evidence)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">How can we
emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties
and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? </span><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Mathematics is incapable of providing
such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only
by using scientific methods. No painter can paint XYZ (i.e. rea-CBD), if he has
no clues how XYZ (or real-CBD) looks like. Today no software expert can provide
accurate summary or realistic description for real CBD. Isn’t a scandal?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Best Regards,</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Raju Chiluvuri</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-54682171212491122992016-10-02T21:09:00.003-07:002016-10-03T01:36:29.240-07:00What can you do, if researchers/scientists feel offended by Truth (e.g. few resort to personal attacks/insults, while others try to evade the Truth)?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Any real truth (e.g.
discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering Body of
Knowledge) can withstand even the most rigorous validation and prevail. In
fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter and brighter
when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation. But how such
truth/reality can prevail if everyone tries to cover-up (e.g. ignores proof, evidence
or evade basic investigation) by using every possible excuse (or even resort
personal attacks or insults)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Discoveries of
Galileo Galilee faced huge resistance such as: "I am not going to look
through your "telescope", as you call it, because I know the Earth is
static (or flat) ... I am not a fool, how dare you to insult my
intelligence?". Likewise, most experts feel we are insulting their
intelligence, if we say purpose of CBD (Component Based Design) is not
"reuse". Today no one else even knows the objective reality about:
"what is true essence and power of CBD". Many experts feel insulted,
if we try to expose the Truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"> Every other modern scientific, logic or engineering
discipline is employing proven mechanisms for continuous validation and/or
correction of flawed axioms, theories or beliefs. In hard sciences, we have
objective reality to continuously measure and correct each of the theories and facts
in the BoK (Body of Knowledge), where the BoK provides theoretical or
scientific foundation for engineering researchers for making useful inventions.
In mathematics/logic, the mathematical methods leads to a glaring contradiction
(e.g. such as 1 = 0), if a theory or axiom is wrong. In computer science, such
mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms or
beliefs have been ignored.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Software
researchers can’t blindly make up definitions or theories for including in BoK
(by insisting such flawed theories or beliefs are self-evident facts): If my
mission is to reach Asia from San Francisco, is it OK to name (or define) the
direction I am going is West (even if I am sailing from San Francisco to South
Pole)? Can I define whatever direction I am going is "West" to create
an illusion that I am going West. After reaching the South Pole, can I declare
that my mission to reach Asia is successful by defining the place I reached is <st1:place w:st="on">Asia</st1:place>? If I were given a mission to visit the Mars, can I
claim that I visited the Mars by defining Sahara desert is the Mars and
visiting the <st1:place w:st="on">Sahara</st1:place> desert?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">That is exactly
what software researchers have been doing with impunity: The existing
definitions for components have been creating an illusion that software
engineering is using components. The CBD for software is defined as using such
fake components. Whatever kind of software parts researchers feel useful is
defined as a kind of software components, without any basis in logic, reasoning
or consideration to reality/fact. Whatever the destination such fake components
lead to is called a kind of CBD for software.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">The above
approach for acquiring theoretical knowledge for BoK for software engineering
defies even common scene. How can it be it a science? How can it be a
mathematics/logic (e.g. consistent axiomatic system)? How can it be engineering?
Isn’t it a fraud (or at last monumental sloppiness/ignorance)? <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Proven mechanisms
for detecting flawed axioms, theories, hypothesis or beliefs are absolutely essential
for any method for acquiring useful knowledge. No knowledge is useful, if it is
invalid/wrong and often insidiously harmful, if it is flawed. Any scientific,
logic or engineering discipline can’t afford to foolishly throw caution (or
even basic common sense) to the winds in pursuit of fool’s errand by relying on
such insidious flawed knowledge. Effective mechanisms are essential for not
only to validate/detect any flawed theories (or axioms) but also continuously refining
each proven theory/fact in the BoK based on new evidence, for example, to
explain new anomalies (if and when discovered) or based on new context (e.g. if
and when effects of obscure or rare outlier events are discovered). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately
many experts feel offended by the Truth (i.e. objective realty about the CBD of
physical components), which offers very effective method for continuous
validation and correction. When I try to present Truth/reality backed by proven
objective methods for validation and detecting anomalies/outliers for
continuous refinement, we are facing huge resistance. Many of them say: "I
won’t listen to your pseudo philosophy/CBD junk. Look at my LinkedIn (or RG) profile.
I have been using software components for decades and I am a famous expert on
CBSD/CBSE. You are a fool. How dare you to insult my intelligence?"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">If any researcher
or scientist disagrees with my discovery backed by facts and evidence, he can and
must counter my facts and evidence by using his facts and evidence, rather than
resorting to insults and/or quoting his credentials. I can’t believe renowned
software researchers and scientist in the 21<sup>st</sup> century reacting not
much differently from the 16th century philosophers in the dark ages. Others
pretend to be polite by offering patronizing or condescending suggestions to
evade their sacred duty to investigating the Truth. Such evasive tactics would
be frustrating to anyone struggling for many years to expose such Truth,
especially after listening to thousands of such condescending suggestions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">The biggest
hurdle to scientific or technological progress is preconceived notions and
prejudice, which further complicated by egos, incompetence or arrogance. Famous
Quotes by Arthur Schopenhauer (Great 19th Century German Philosopher): “The
discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance
things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the
reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.” . Almost no one can dispute the Truth and
reality about the CBD of physical products or physical components, which is in
open for any one to see: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Isn’t it the
sacred duty of any real scientist or research is pursuit of Truth? How can we
deal with such fake scientists or researchers not willing to know the Truth,
but pretending to be world famous scientists or researchers? Each school/cult of
so called CBSE experts define CBSD (CBD for software) is using software
components, where each kind of software components is a kind of software parts
either having useful properties (e.g. of their choice such as reuse or
standardized) or conforming to one of the so called component-model, which they
made-up out of thin air (based on wishful thinking or fantasy 50 years ago)
without any basis is reality, fact, logic or even common sense. No mechanism or
method ever employed to validate (e.g. to detect flaws or to correct) such core
axioms or theories (by believing them to be self-evident facts), which are at
the very heart of the BoK for software engineering in general and CBSD in
particular.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-37674360089344574102016-09-04T15:38:00.001-07:002016-09-05T11:57:48.939-07:00Isn't it absolutely essential for each & every method (used for acquiring useful knowledge) for research must have "self-correcting mechanisms"?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> Any
thing can be a fact (or proven theory), only as long as (i) it is supported by
published repeatable and falsifiable proof backed by demonstrable well
documented evidence, and (ii) no one else can falsify the published proof and
evidence either by using existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) or by using new
demonstrable evidence. The 2nd part is the "self-correcting mechanism",
which is essential part of any scientific or engineering research method/paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> Existing scientific or engineering research
paradigm is successful, only because the scientific methods have
"self-correcting mechanism". For example, even if a published
conclusion, concept, proven theory or fact is flawed, the "self-correcting
mechanism" ensure that Truth would prevail sooner or later.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">
Unfortunately software researchers disabled the essential
"self-correcting mechanism" of scientific method. For example, 2000
years ago researchers disabled "self-correcting mechanism" by insisting
that "the Earth is static" is a self-evident fact (hence requires no
proof). They disabled the "self-correcting mechanism" by assuming
such self-evident fact needs no proof. Likewise, software researchers disabled
"self-correcting mechanism"
by insisting that exiting
definitions for components and CBD (Component Based Design) are self-evident
facts (hence requires no proof). Today no one even know what is the basis (e.g.
axioms, beliefs and reasoning) for the definitions. The definitions can be corrected
(if the basis is wrong), if the beliefs and reasons are documented. Since the
definitions have no basis, there is no mechanism for validating or correcting
the definitions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> Is
it possible to acquire accurate knowledge essential for modern scientific or
engineering discipline by selectively disabling or ignoring the
"self-correcting mechanism" of the scientific method? How can I
convince software researchers that it is wrong the disabling the
"self-correcting mechanism"? Many conclusions, concepts or facts
added to the BoK for software by disabling or ignoring "self-correcting
mechanism".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">
This error injected flawed facts (i.e. beliefs considered self-evident
facts) nearly 50 years ago and such flawed facts are at the very foundation of
software engineering. The existing software engineering paradigm has been
evolving for nearly 50 years by relying on such flawed facts. This resulted in
the geocentric paradox (a strange altered perception of reality filled with
inexplicable retrograde motions or epicycles) in software engineering.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> The
"self-correcting mechanism" (e.g. falsifiable facts or documented
evidence) make it very simple and non-controversial to invalidate such well
documented proof or evidence by finding and demonstrating just a flaw. Saying
that "the Sun is at the center" offended common sense and then deeply
entrenched conventional wisdom. Today many experts consider that it is arrogant
and disrespectful to question the validity of the so called self-evident facts
such as definitions for so called components or CBD (Component Based Design).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">
Many experts even questioned my motives as if I committed a heresy or
crime. Isn't it essential for any method devised for acquiring knowledge must
have "self-correcting-mechanism" (e.g. falsifiable, if the fact or
conclusion is flawed) to maintain the quality and accuracy of the knowledge?
How do we know the quality and degree of accuracy (e.g. applicability in a
given context) of the knowledge, if it is considered heresy to ask for proof.
How can we improve non-existent proof, if an when new outlier evidence is
discovered to gain deeper insights and wisdom (e.g. degree of accuracy and
applicability of knowledge).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> It
would be much simpler to invalidate the so called facts, if they are supported
by published proofs (e.g. by finding just one or two flaws in the proof). But
today only way to expose the error is bringing in complex Kuhnian paradigm
shift by invalidating large chunks of existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) of
deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> The
self-correcting-mechanism is essential for keeping the research efforts in the
right path. Isn't it common sense that any effort (e.g. research or
investigation) would end up in wrong path as soon as start relying on flawed
fact or assumption? The self-correcting-mechanism (e.g. falsifiable facts) of
scientific method successfully prevented repeat of kind of mistakes that lead
to geocentric paradox. Even mathematics or logic use self-correcting-mechanisms
such as maintaining consistency of each of the axiomatic systems (e.g. axioms would be adjusted to maintain
consistency of the system, if anomalies or inconsistencies are discovered in
the axiomatic system).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> Except
computers science, no one else repeated similar kind of mistake (e.g. relying
on unproven beliefs by insisting the belief is self-evident fact - in effect,
disabled "self-correcting-mechanism" such as empirical falsification).
I cannot find any other example, where any other scientific or engineering
discipline committed this kind of mistake. How do we know, if we are going in
the right path (or wasting our efforts on a wrong path), if we turn off
navigation system (i.e. self-correcting-mechanism) of any method for acquiring
knowledge. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> How
do you know or make sure, if you are going in the right path? For example, if
you want to go east, but how can you be sure you are going east? If you don't
have a navigation system (self-correcting-mechanism), you may be going either
North of West, but have no way of knowing the mistake for correcting it. If you
are going North, can you define the North is East for you by ignoring the
reality? Software researchers did exactly that - By defining the nature and
properties of so called components and true essence of the CBD without any
basis in reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> The
main purpose of research is nothing but exploring new uncharted territory or
frontiers. Is it possible to explore such vast unknown frontiers without using
any kind of navigational system (self-correcting-mechanism)? Software
researchers turned-off proven navigation system (self-correcting-mechanism) and
ended up in the infamous software crisis. Many think I am crazy, if I ask them
to use proven navigation system (self-correcting-mechanism).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">
Many experts insist computer science is not a real science and software
engineering is not a real engineering. They are right. But the reason for
computer science is not a real science and software engineering is not real
engineering is: research efforts of researchers have been traveling in a wrong
path for 45 years. Any scientific (or
engineering) discipline end up a fake scientific (or engineering) discipline,
if research efforts end up in a wrong path and have no
self-correcting-mechanism. Software researchers can use
self-correcting-mechanisms (having proven track record), but refusing to use
the self-correcting-mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"> If
my mission is reach Asia from <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, is
it OK to name (or define) the direction I am going is West (even if I am
sailing from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city></st1:place>
to South Pole)? Can I define the term "West" to create an illusion
that I am going West. After reaching the South Pole, can I declare that my
mission to reach Asia is successful by defining the place I reached is <st1:place w:st="on">Asia</st1:place>? That is exactly what happened: The existing definitions
for components is created an illusion that software engineering is using
components. The CBD for software is defined as using such fake components. Whatever
the destination they reach, they call it CBD (without using any mechanisms for
validation - by ignoring obvious realities of the CBD). The software
researchers disabled (i.e. have been ignoring) all the mechanisms (e.g.
empirical falsification, obvious reality, evidence, try to achieve consistent
axiomatic system or even common sense) for correcting or validating the definitions
for components and CBD (Component Based Design).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-89254163624492418272016-09-03T09:41:00.001-07:002016-09-03T12:27:26.975-07:00Summary and magnitude of Kuhnian paradigm shift (or Gestalt Shift)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> The
geocentric paradigm had been evolved for centuries comprising of countless
concepts, observations and empirical evidence, which are consistent with each
other and together paint a complex picture (i.e. perception) of reality. The
FIG-1 illustrates the picture painted by the BoK (Body of Knowledge)
accumulated for over 1600 years up until 16<sup>th</sup> century, where the BoK
flied with countless concepts, observations and empirical evidence (e.g.
retrograde motions in FIG-2 and epicycles in FIG-3) in the webpage <a href="http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html" target="_blank">http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The existing Heliocentric paradigm painted a radically
different picture (i.e. perception) of the reality by using countless concepts,
observations and empirical evidence. The FIG-4 illustrates the picture painted
by the BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated since 16<sup>th</sup> century. Each
concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for Heliocentric paradigm
consistent with each other and also consistent with the picture painted in the
FIG-4. Likewise, Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the BoK for
Geocentric paradigm consistent with each other and also consistent with the
picture in the FIG-1.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Each concept, observation or empirical evidence in the
BoK for one paradigm contradicts many of the concepts, observations or
empirical evidences in the BoK for another paradigm. In other words, each
concept or observation in geocentric paradigm is consistent with the root axiom
(i.e. the Earth is at the center), but inconsistent (or in contradiction) with
any other axiom (e.g. the Sun is at the center) and BoK acquired by relying the
other axiom.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> The
axiom at the root of geocentric paradigm is "the Earth is static (at the
center)". That is, the geocentric paradigm evolved for centuries by
relying on a flawed belief that "the Earth is static" (by concluding
that the belief is a self-evident fact). Later it was discovered that the Sun
is at the center. The seed axiom at the root of existing heliocentric paradigm
is "the Earth is static (at the center)". The existing heliocentric
paradigm is supported by a BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising of many concepts,
observations and empirical evidence, which are discovered or acquired by
relying on seed axiom "the Sun is at center".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> The
BoK for each paradigm comprises of concepts, observations or empirical
evidences that are consistent with each other and also consistent with the root
or seed axioms of respective paradigms (since each of the items in the BoK had
been created by relying on the seed or root axioms). In other words, each
paradigm is supported by a BoK (comprises of items such as concepts,
observations or empirical evidences), where each of the items is created or
acquired by relying on seed axioms at the root of respective paradigms. Both
paradigms paint radically different picture (or perception) of realities, where
BoK of each paradigm is consistent with respective seed axioms (or goals).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> The
existing software engineering paradigm in general and CBSE/CBSD (Component
Based Design for Software) in particular has been evolving for decades by relying
on a flawed belief that: the CBSE is building software by using software parts
(i.e. so called software components) such as reusable and/or standardized
software parts (e.g. so called component libraries or models). The existing CBSE
paradigm supported by a BoK (comprising countless items such as concepts,
observations or empirical evidences), where the items are consistent with each
other and all of the items together paints a picture (i.e. perception) of
reality. This existing perception of reality for CBD for software products is
radically different from the reality we know about the CBD of physical products
in general, and particularly the component based design and development or
engineering of one-of-a-kind physical products such as an experimental
spacecraft or pre-production working models (that are fully-tested prototype
and ready for mass production) of next-generation jet-fighters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> I
used scientific methods for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) that comprises of
many concepts, observations or empirical evidences for painting the picture of reality
of the CBD of physical components. I also made necessary inventions for
achieving the reality for the software products. Each of our concept,
observation or empirical evidence is consistent with the reality of the CBD of
physical products, but unfortunately each of them can be contradicted by dozens
of concepts, observations or empirical evidences in the BoK of existing CBSE
paradigm. Of course, dozens of items in the BoK for geocentric paradigm contradicted
each item in the BoK for heliocentric paradigm. This kind of paradigm shift
can't be achieved by writing a paper or 45 minutes-presentation of slides. I
believe, it is possible to instill enough BoK in 2 to 3 days for new paradigm
to prove that the new paradigm paints superior picture of reality, and is far
more useful and capable of overcomes the crisis created by the exiting paradigm
(rooted in flawed axioms).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> The
main difference between normal paradigm shift and Kuhnian paradigm shift: (1)
normal paradigm shift creates new BoK, which not necessarily contradicts or
invalidate exiting paradigms, and (2) Kuhnian paradigm shift exposes
fundamentally flawed paradigm and need to replace the whole BoK (which is
filled with flawed concepts and observations) of the old paradigm by a new BoK.
In other words, due to an error at the root, researchers end up creating an
altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction to the reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> The
Kuhnian paradigm shift replaces such flawed altered perception of reality by
more accurate perception of reality (that puts scientific or engineering
progress on right tracks, since the error at the root put the progress in wrong
path and ended up in a crisis). Exposing the error opens up vast uncharted
opportunities unprecedented advancements. For example, mankind would be in dark
ages, if the error at the root of the geocentric paradigm were not yet exposed.
Likewise, exposing the error at the root of software engineering leads to
unprecedented progress and revolution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> If any
observation or empirical evidence doesn't fit the existing BoK or if it can't
be bent or twisted to fit the existing BoK., such observation or empirical evidence
would be thrown out or ignored by using silly or baseless excuses such as
software is unique or different. I am sure, philosophers did the same thing up
until 500 years ago. Only observation or empirical evidence that can be bent or
twisted to fit the geocentric paradigm (i.e. picture FIG-1 painted by then
existing BoK) would be added to expand the BoK.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> Everything
else might had been ignored, if it can't be rationalized to fit the FIG-1 by
bending or twisting. There was enough evidence existed to show that the Sun
might be at the center. This lead to proposals such as Tychonic system.
Software researchers refusing to investigate irrefutable facts and evidence by using
silly or baseless excuses such as software is unique or different. It would be
uphill battle to go against huge BoK (comprising tens of thousands of concepts,
observations and empirical evidence) accumulated for nearly 50 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> Based
on my experience, a small set of facts
or concepts can't achieve gestalt shift, especially researchers are not willing
to investigate all the evidence with open mind. I believe, only way to achieve the
gestalt shift is by presenting all the evidence and facts for 2 to 3 days, if
researchers are willing to discover truth by acquiring necessary BoK of new
paradigm and investigating all the evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-46221470520889010692016-08-27T13:58:00.001-07:002016-08-27T14:09:07.704-07:00How is it possible to compel researchers to gain basic knowledge (without violating basic scientific rules) to solve certain unsolved problems?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> Isn't
common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ,
doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For
example, how could any one draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without
ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a
tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint a picture of an elephant,
shouldn't he try to know what it is and how the elephants looks like?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> How
could any one possibly say whether it is possible or not to invent real CBD for
software, without ever even trying to know what is the nature/essence of the CBD
(Component Based Design)? No software researcher in the world knows (e.g. can be
able to provide even right general rough description) what is the true essence
of the CBD of Physical Products, particularly the design and development of one
of a kind physical products such as experimental spacecraft or pre-production
fully tested final working models of next generation jet-fighters. Any one can
prove me wrong by providing accurate description for real CBD.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> Don't
we need to have rough or basic knowledge about nature and essential properties
of physical components necessary for the CBD of physical products, if we want
to paint (i.e. invent) equivalent virtual components (having the essential
properties) necessary for the CBD of virtual software products in cyberspace. Today
software experts (i.e. of CBSD/CBSE) can't even recognize, even if a bunch of pictures
of elephants (i.e. real-software-components) fall in their lap. Even if you
show real-software-components and real CBSD, the so called CBSD/CBSE experts
think you are crazy and steadfastly snub the facts/reality. I have been trying
to demonstrate real-software-components and CBD for software for years, but not
able to make any progress. Most of the software researchers deny even obvious
facts, observations and evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> Software
researchers have been painting the nature and reality of so called software
components and CBD (Component Based Design) for software products for about 45
years, without making any effort to know what is nature and essential aspects
of CBD and essential properties of components. This completely altered their
perception of reality, which is preventing them to recognize obvious reality or
accept simple evidence or obvious facts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> The
scientific methods have proven track-record to systematically gather,
investigate and analyze evidence to discover nature and essential properties of
any kind of physical beings/things. The nature &
essential properties of physical components are objective facts, which can be
discovered by employing scientific methods. Scientific methods have proven
track-record for discovering essential properties of not only far more complex
physical things (e.g. viruses, bacteria, light, particles such as electrons)
but also uniquely and universally shared properties by far more diverse
species/beings (e.g. animals, plants or chemicals).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> If
the Sun is at the center, believing that any planet other than sun at the
center and relying on such flawed axiom for expanding body of knowledge (e.g.
to comprehend the reality) lead to a crisis (filled with anomalies,
inconsistencies and contradictions such as inexplicable retrograde motions and
epicycles). Any scientific or engineering discipline and research efforts end
up in wrong path, if it starts relying on flawed axioms (e.g. such axiomatic
beliefs by assuming them to be self-evident facts). The discipline ends up in
crisis (e.g. paradoxical paradigm or altered perception of reality and
conventional wisdom), if the research efforts continue in the wrong path for
prolonged time without realizing such mistake.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> Likewise,
if the essential properties of components are {R, S}, it is an error to define
properties of components any thing other than the properties {R, S}. Software
engineering ends up in a crisis (e.g. altered perception), if research efforts
try to expand body of knowledge by relying on such flawed properties for
prolonged period. It is a violation of basic rules or methods of mathematics
(or logic) to rely on flawed axioms, even computer science was to be a
sub-domain of mathematics alone. Using flawed axioms leads to inconsistent
axiomatic system (having contradictions), which is a classic example of a
crisis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> The
infamous software crisis would be a thing of past, even if few software
researchers spend just few days (by employing proven scientific methods without
violating processes and principles) to discover objective facts and reality
such as what is the true essence of ideal CBD for the physical products and the
essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known
physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered, it
is a trivial task to invent real-software-components havening the essential
properties.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> Many
software researchers react as if I asked them to leave their beloved religion
and join another religion, if I ask him to just investigate obvious evidence
and observations using proven scientific methods to discover the truth and
reality about ideal CBD. I am only requesting not to commit heresy by violating
basic religious tenets of our beloved religion (i.e. of advancing science &
technology).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> The
purpose of basic research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which doesn't
necessarily mean discovering only absolute Truths, but also getting closer and
closer to the absolute Truths, without violating basic religious tenets (i.e.
widely accepted and proven scientific processes and principles). <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost" target="_blank">Itis a heresy to violate basic scientific processes and principles</a>, because
violating basic scientific processes and principles diverts research effort
into a wrong path and ends up in a crisis (i.e. a paradoxical paradigm and
altered perception of reality), if research effort continues in the wrong path
for long enough time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> Even
a high school kid should not have problem drawing a rough picture certainly
resembling an elephant (without any ambiguity), if he has seen the pictures of the
elephants or if he has basic knowledge about the elephants. On the other hand,
even the best painter (i.e. software expert) can’t draw a picture (i.e. provide
even rough description) that even remotely resembles an elephant (i.e. CBD), if
has no clue what the elephants looks like (i.e. the CBD). Today software
researchers have no clue what is the nature and aspects of CBD to even roughly
describe the true nature or essential aspects of the CBD.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">How can I convenience software researchers that it is
essential to gain basic knowledge using scientific methods having proven track
record for acquiring certain kinds of necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) to
solve certain software problems that are not yet solved. The problems such as
real CBD for software and real Artificial-Inelegance (that are unsolved for a
long time) could not be solved <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics" target="_blank">withoutsuch BoK, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods (withoutviolating basic scientific principles and processes)</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: medium;">Raju Chiluvuri</span></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-71455534944569804302016-06-18T06:03:00.000-07:002016-06-18T06:19:13.100-07:00Is it heresy to request software scientists to not violate basic well established scientific processes, principles & proven rules?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Dear Friends,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Trying to advance any scientific or
technological discipline by relying on unproven belief (even if the belief is
perceived to be a self-evident truth), is a well-established violation of
scientific processes, principles or rules. Software researchers have been
trying to advance CBSD (Component Based Software Design) for 50 years by
relying on such unproven beliefs, myths or fantasy. That is, existing flawed
CBSD paradigm is rooted in unproven beliefs (that were perceived to be
self-evident facts 50 years ago) and has been evolving for 50 years, without
knowing or realizing the huge violation of basic scientific processes, principles
or rules. That is, existing CBSD paradox (i.e. flawed of perception of altered
reality) is result of over 45 years of passionate hard work and efforts of tens
of thousands of researchers at any time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Any scientific or technological
research diverts into a wrong path (away from right path), as soon as it relies
on a flawed belief (e.g. by erroneously assuming it to be an accurate fact).
The well-established scientific principles and process forbids any real
scientist from ever relying on a belief (e.g. an assumption), except for
theoretical experimentation and exploration to see if the path leads a useful
discovery. Hence it is absolutely essential to document any belief (that the
belief is just an assumption, that is not yet proven), until the belief is
proven to be a fact beyond any doubt.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">If and when the belief is proven to
be a demonstrable and repeatable fact, the proof must be clearly documented, so
that the proof can be independently validated and could be falsified, if the
fact is flawed. Anything that is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt must be
treated and clearly documented as a belief. No belief can be treated as a fact
until the proof is provided openly and independently validated. The proof must
be in open domain for anyone to validate or to falsify. Such proven belief may
be considered as a fact only as long as the proof cannot be falsified by
anyone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Most of the definitions and/or
concepts at the root of existing CBSD paradigm are made out of thin air, based
on wishful thinking and pure fantasy, such as, building software products by
assembling COTS (Commercially Of The Shelf) components from third party component
vendors, as computer hardware engineers design and build computers by using
standardised reusable ICs (e.g. CPU or DRAM) and other parts such as Hard
Drive, CD-player or network-card etc. It is a pure fantasy and fiction, in
light of reality and design of any other physical products (e.g. cars or
airplanes), which can’t be competitively differentiated by using software OS
and applications: <a href="http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html" target="_blank">http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The researchers violated the basic
scientific principles and rules by relying on beliefs. If they considered that
the beliefs are facts, they violated the scientific process and principles by
not documenting the proof, so that others can validate the proof independently.
Also allows the future generations to falsify the proof, if and when new
discoveries or technological advancements make it possible to invalidate the
proof. In real science, it is impossible to find any widely accepted fact
having no proof. That is, it is not a real science, if it relies on unproven
belief, which were considered to be a fact (without having well documented
proof, which is open for independent validation). Anyone who can’t understand
this very simple reasoning or basic scientific principles or processes is not a
real scientist. It is not wrong to rely on beliefs, but it is violation of
scientific process to not clearly documenting the beliefs as assumptions.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I am sure any good collage student
of science can understand this logic. I have no idea, why the most brilliant
computer scientists have problem accepting these facts and logic. Instead they
feel that it is a heresy, if I mention that it is wrong violate such basic well
established scientific processes, principles and proven rules. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Isn’t it the stupidest violation in
history of science, many times stupider than the flawed belief that was lead to
the geocentric paradigm? It is not hard to understand why mankind few 1000
years ago concluded that “the Earth is static” is a fact. But how any one can
possible understand the foolish definitions at the root of CBSD such as
reusable and/or standardised parts are components, and using such fake
components is CBSD.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">As per these foolish definitions, parts
equivalent to highly standardised and reusable ingredient parts such as 53
grade cement, TMT steal, paint, plastic, metals, silicon wafers or alloys are
components (and using them to build houses is CBD). On the other hand, software
parts equivalent to the highly customised components (that are neither reusable
nor standardised) used in designing and building one-of-a-kind physical
products (e.g. prototype of a next generation jet-fighter or experimental spacecraft)
are not components, and using such parts is not CBD. Isn’t it these beliefs (that
are at the root of existing CBSD paradigm) many times more foolish than the 2000
years old belief “the Earth is static”?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The belief “the Earth is static” evolved
for 1000 years into a complex altered perception of reality depicted by FIG-1 –
doesn’t it look like a huge spaghetti code? The FIG-4 depicts the exiting
perception of reality described by Kepler’s laws – So simple and elegant
(compared to FIG-1): <a href="http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html" target="_blank">http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Existing CBSD paradigm evolving for
nearly 50 years by relying of flawed beliefs and it looks 10 times uglier than the
FIG-1. When the flaw at the root of existing CBSD is exposed by using facts,
real CBD for software will be simple and elegant as illustrated by FIG-2 at: <a href="http://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html" target="_blank">http://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html</a>
and FIG-4 at: <a href="http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html" target="_blank">http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-87209539907103187662016-06-09T02:54:00.000-07:002016-06-09T02:54:31.814-07:00I am searching for real scientists. Are there any real scientists doing research in computer science or software engineering?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Dear Friends,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> The
existing CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is rooted in beliefs, which
I can prove are flawed. Software researchers violated basic scientific rules
and principles 50 years ago by relying on untested beliefs, this resulted in
software crisis. I can’t find even a single real scientist who understands
basic scientific principles and relying on untested beliefs is gross violation of
the scientific principles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In the history of science, I
could find only one other example, where a scientific discipline relied on a
belief (i.e. the earth is static) and evolved into a complex geocentric
paradoxical paradigm, which altered perception of reality and ended up in very
costly scientific crisis. Can anyone name any example other than existing CBSD
paradigm, which is rooted in beliefs?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Can anyone of you name
any other untested and unproven belief in any other scientific discipline,
except the untested & unproven belief (i.e. the Earth is static) that
eventually resulted in complex geocentric paradox (an altered perception of
reality). No other research community of any real scientific discipline ever
relied or accepted relying on untested and unproven belief for advancing any
other scientific discipline.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">It is beyond my
comprehension, why none of the software researcher feels such gross violation
(i.e. relying on an unproven belief) is a problem. Why it is hard to understand
this simple fact/rule: <i><u>Relying on
flawed belief/fact diverts research efforts into a wrong path?</u></i> <b>In history of science, it is impossible to
find any exception to this basic scientific rule</b>. If brute force (i.e. research
effort) is employed to advance the discipline, it ends up in crisis (since
nothing useful could possibly exist in such a wrong path).</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Any research
effort to advance a scientific or engineering discipline diverts into a wrong
path (that certainly leads to a crisis), <i><u>as
soon as it started relying on flawed belief/fact</u></i>. <b><i><u>There is no exception to this
rule.</u></i></b> How anyone possibly assume blindly that computer science (or
software engineering) could be an exception to such a basic rule or principle?
After software engineering ended up in crisis, many experts (e.g. Dr. Brook’s
“No Silver Bullet”) try to rationalize that it is the nature of software engineering
by using meticulous observations of retrograde motions and elaborate mapping of
epicycles, which are only deceptions of fundamentally altered perception of
reality.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<i><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Anyone
can prove me wrong by showing even a single exception to this rule</span></u></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">: It
is a nature of any real science to end up in a wrong path, if researchers rely
on beliefs, if the beliefs are flawed. It is inevitable that the scientific
discipline ends up in crisis, if researches blindly employ brute force to
advance the discipline. <i><u>For example,
if anyone foolishly believes that he can fly and jumps-off 900 feet tall cliff
or building, can he avoid the bad consequences of his foolish belief (i.e. if
he can’t fly)?</u></i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<i><u><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Relying
on untested beliefs is a gross violation of scientific rules and principles.</span></u></i><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> It is
impossible to avoid consequences (when any scientific discipline makes such
huge foolish mistake). Hence software have been suffering the consequences for
at least 3 decades (at a cost of trillions of dollars). There is no other way
to overcome the crisis (to prevent wasting trillions more), except exposing the
flawed beliefs that diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The existing
CBSD paradigm (an altered perception of reality) is the result of tens of
thousands of software researchers investing their research efforts for decades
without realizing that they are pushing it in a wrong path.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> <i><u>Prove me wrong by showing an exception to
this very basic scientific rule in the history of science</u></i>: “Relying on
flawed a belief” is not only a blunder but also a violation of basic scientific
principle. Please don’t give me examples of beliefs, that later turned out to
be right (e.g. by luck). I am only talking about the beliefs that are flawed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In case of CBSD, I can prove
that the beliefs are flawed, if any researcher is willing to see the evidence.
If he can’t understand this simple logic, is he a real scientist? No one can
deny simple scientific rules or principles. I don’t know how to prove obvious
facts. Let me quote Galileo (last person struggled to expose such flawed
belief): "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any
paradox.". I couldn’t find any other examples of such flawed beliefs (at
the root of any scientific discipline) to learn from other’s experiences, which
could be helpful in my struggle to expose the flawed beliefs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> The
research community used excuses such as: If the Earth is moving, why the Moon
is not left behind (or how could Moon follow)? They refuse to see the evidence
(e.g. Galileo’s Moons), when Galileo offered to show proof using advanced
telescope invented by Galileo. The best way to expose this kind of flawed
beliefs is investigating physical evidence. I can show equivalent physical
evidence: many real software components & CBD applications built by
assembling the real software components.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Almost
every software scientist or researcher readily admit that existing CBSD is
rooted in unproven beliefs, but they continue to deny any violation of fundamental
scientific principles. They pretend to be scientists. How could they be real scientists
without even knowing that it is an error to violate basic scientific principles?
This kind of thing never happened in the history of mankind, not even in the
dark ages.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">It may be understandable, if someone
makes a mistake in a multiplication (e.g. 17 * 29 = 487). How could anyone continue
to deny the mistake, even after the error is clearly pointed out? How could anyone
insist that it is not a wrong answer, while claiming to be an expert in mathematics?
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-45570806028404631052016-05-26T21:54:00.000-07:002016-05-27T21:20:58.763-07:00How and/or where can I find “real scientists”, who earned deserving Ph.D and/or doing “real” research in computer science or software engineering?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-4585121597450694962016-03-15T22:14:00.000-07:002016-03-15T22:14:05.001-07:00Can you believe that a modern scientific discipline has been evolving by relying on untested myth and violating scientific principles/processes? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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 <a href="http://www.real-software-components.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.real-software-components.com</span></a>
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):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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: <a href="http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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: <a href="http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html</span></a>
(FIG-4 illustrates the perception of reality exists today).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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? <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-17781043821286092252016-02-29T02:21:00.002-08:002016-02-29T02:21:41.081-08:00If every one refuses to see proof, how is it possible to expose flaws in scientific foundation & blatant violations of scientific processes/rules?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">Please review
Figure-1 in this web page that represents the mankind’s perception of reality
up until 500 years ago: <a href="http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html">http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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).</span><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Furthermore
each </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">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<sup>st</sup> century. Kindly recall
Galilio’s famous letter to Kepler in year 1610: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">"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."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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: <a href="http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology" target="_blank">http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Researchers
of Computer sciences are practising very bad science by blatantly violating scientific
principles, processes and rules: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-54348883790481203482016-02-18T20:23:00.003-08:002016-02-20T18:13:58.595-08:00What kind of scientists deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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 <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city> 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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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 <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city>
did.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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:
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions</a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For example, Kepler’s laws to quantify the planetary
orbits or <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city>’s
laws of to quantify universal gravity are not absolute truths but close enough
for most of the practical purposes. For example, <st1:city w:st="on">Newton</st1:city>’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 <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city>’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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">My polite hypocrisy
not worked for past 5 years, which is forcing me to consider brutal honesty. </span><span style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">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.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">Best Regards,</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Raju Chiluvuri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">CEO, Pioneer-soft.com</span><span style="font-family: "arial";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-58556206426750983212015-12-01T04:08:00.002-08:002015-12-02T03:00:36.610-08:00Software researchers practising bad science by relying on untested/unproven flawed concepts/definitions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<i><u><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">“Nature
is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden
reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.”</span></u></i><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;"> … <b>Galileo Galilei<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">
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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">
Please kindly see figures 1 and 4 at </span><a href="http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">. 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">
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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">
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: </span><a href="http://raju-chiluvuri.blogspot.in/2015/11/if-computer-science-is-not-real-science.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">http://raju-chiluvuri.blogspot.in/2015/11/if-computer-science-is-not-real-science.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">
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).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;"> 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: </span><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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: </span><a href="http://www.real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD_postulations.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">http://www.real-software-components.com/technologies/CBD_postulations.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">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 </span><span style="line-height: 24px;">practicing</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"> good science. They are </span><span style="line-height: 24px;">practicing</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"> bad science by violating basic scientific process/rules and blaming
the computer science.</span></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-47998120076697516832015-11-23T01:52:00.001-08:002015-11-23T01:56:52.474-08:00Each Researcher has an obligation to know Truth – It is his sacred Duty<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design" target="_blank">document/page</a>
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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> 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”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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<sup>rd</sup> 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<sup>st</sup> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">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.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-24653667265877051062015-08-20T06:51:00.002-07:002015-08-20T21:42:10.734-07:00How axioms that are considered to be self-evident Truths could result in scientific crisis?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<div style="line-height: 250%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 250%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 250%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 250%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 250%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 250%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 250%;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 250%; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4940288561154033329.post-46824236178677498082015-05-19T19:55:00.001-07:002015-05-20T05:52:21.627-07:00Is it a blasphemy to ask researchers to discover objective facts/truths?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Is mankind’s knowledge about
animals or birds subjective? Is mankind’s knowledge such as many kinds of birds
can fly or lay eggs, subjective? Are these kinds of facts subjective: large
animals breathe and have blood, or trees produce oxygen? What is the true
purpose of scientific research? Isn’t the purpose of science to discover and
disseminate such knowledge of objective facts? When mankind’s knowledge
contains millions of such objective facts about physical beings and physical
phenomena, why can’t we find objective facts about the physical functional
components and CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Why experts and researchers
treat that it is a blasphemy to ask them to discover objective facts about the
quintessential nature of the large physical functional components (e.g.
essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known
physical functional component) and essential aspects uniquely and universally
shared by any CBD (Component Based Design) for one of a kind physical products
such as building a working prototype of a next generation Jet-fighter, nuclear
powered locomotive engine or spacecraft?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I am not asking to believe me.
I am only asking to discover the objective facts. If anyone thinks he is a
scientist or researcher, then it is his sacred duty to peruse the hidden
truths. Discovering these truths expose one of the “fundamental errors” of
computer science and software engineering, this already costed more than a
trillion to world economy and continues to cost 100s of billions each year.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Whatever I am saying feel
subjective to most experts or researchers, because they have been brainwashed
for decades by unsubstantiated notions and concepts such as any kind of useful
parts (e.g. having a given set of usefully properties or conform to any kind of
so called component model) is a kind of software components. After a decade of
my passionate research and hands on experience in creating large component
hierarchies, it is not subjective to me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Few experts ridiculed me for
calling the baseless definitions for so called software components is a
“fundamental error”. I respectfully request the experts to find a flaw in my
definition for a “fundamental error”: Any error is a “fundamental error” if it
has been preventing scientific or technological progress by side-tracking the
progress into a wrong path resulting in a paradox filled with subjective
concepts, inexplicable contradictions and if the field ended up in a crisis. In
case of such fundamental error, no meaningful scientific or technological
progress could be possible until the error is exposed for putting the progress
on right tracks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">For example, untested
assumption that “the Earth is static” was a “fundamental error”, because it
resulted in a paradox filled with subjective concepts, inexplicable
contradictions and ended up in a crisis. No meaningful progress would have been
possible, if the error were not yet exposed for putting the scientific progress
on right tracks. Discovery of universal gravity, Newton’s laws of motion and
calculus to provide mathematical proof would could not have possible without
the three laws of Kepler.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I am sure, Kepler or Galileo
could not predict what great discoveries and inventions and scientific progress
facilitated by their effort to put the scientific progress on right path or
tracks. They must have speculated that the planetary orbits might be dictated
by some kind of force of attraction, if they could predict the future
discoveries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I am sure, it is impossible to
predict what kind of progress would be possible, when the progress is put on
right path by discovering real software components for achieving the real CBD
for software products. But we can be sure, there will be great discoveries and
inventions lay ahead, when research start progressing on right path. For
example, the greatest invention for increasing productivity (i.e. invention of
interchangeable components) initially faced huge skepticism and resistance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Many great scientific
discoveries are hard to predict until they were made. The scientists (e.g.
Newton, Darwin or Einstein) are became greatest scientists, because they made
such complex and unpredictable scientific discoveries. But one thing we can be
sure: Newton, Einstein and countless discoveries in physics could not have
possible without exposing the fundamental error “the Earth is static” and by
continuing on the wrong path. Likewise, we can be sure there is going to be no
great invention or discovery in software engineering or computer science until
such fundamental errors are fixed. In science and engineering, wrong path or
mistakes don’t lead to discovery of Americas (but end up in dead end crisis),
especially after wasting many decades.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">If there exist anything worth
discovering, we could have discovered decades ago. Many experts concluded that
software engineering was in crisis decades ago (without realizing the
fundamental error at the root). After all their attempts to overcome software
crisis failed, Dr. Brooks prophesized ‘there is no silver bullet’. It is now
became a self-fulfilling prophesy for nearly three decades.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Many experts quoted this and
others as a justification and proof that software engineering is by nature
unique and different. But it is not hard to prove that (e.g. our website has
proof), even the designers of physical products face crisis (e.g. spaghetti
code) no different form the software crisis, if they are prevented from using
replaceable functional components to build component hierarchies (i.e. larger
and larger container components and eventually the product), where the
replaceable functional components are built and tested individually (free from
spaghetti code), and can be unplugged to refine and test individually (free
from spaghetti code) to satisfy evolving future needs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Raju<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09834194277539725731noreply@blogger.com0