Raju Chiluvurihttp://www.pioneer-soft.com · Software Research
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
My life’s mission is: Make research community for software engineering and computer science realize two simple unknown facts about CBP and Components that are essential for CBP: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/CBE_and_CBP.pdf. Kindly allow me to summarize the problem by using a Children’s joke: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ChildrenJokeAnalogy.pdf. Once the simple facts are known and realized, only fools, fake scientists or fraudsters continue to practice fake science.
September 2004 - present
- CEO, Director
January 2000 - March 2015
- CTO, Director
Kindly understand the difference between a valid proof and a convincing proof: A proof is valid, if it is accurate and it is not possible to falsify the proof objectively by using valid knowledge and objective facts or evidence (even if the proof miserably failed to convince the experts due to their flawed prejudice). A convincing proof is not nece...
The Body of Knowledge (or “BoK”) for any scientific or engineering discipline is as good as our understanding and validity of the facts at the core (or the very foundation) of the BoK. Having flawed facts (i.e. flawed beliefs considered to be self-evident facts) corrupts the BoK (e.g. concepts, observations and derived facts) created by relying on...
The objective of this article is to illustrate an example for COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software). It also explains how real CBSD eliminates spaghetti code from the software applications. It is impossible to achieve COP and CBSD without discovering essential nature of physical functiona...
The CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development/Building or Engineering) of a product is implementing large percent of features and functionality of the product in a set of particular kind of parts, where the particular kind of parts are designed and/or conducive to be assembled and disabled. Such parts that are designed and/or conducive to be ass...
There will be a revolution in Software Engineering (by subverting the existing flawed dominant paradigm that is rooted in primordial, unproven, and flawed dogma) if the software community investigates facts and evidence scientifically to learn valid answers and descriptions, scientifically, honestly, and with integrity (by adhering to proven scient...
The basic science ended up creating a mess and/or crisis known as geocentric paradox (i.e. evolving dominant geocentric paradigm by 16th century), when mankind presumed that “the Earth is static at the centre” 2300-years ago (during pre-paradigmatic phase). If the pre-paradigmatic phase foundation for any scientific or technological discipline comp...
Dr. Thomas Kuhn and Sir. Karl Popper are the most respected 20th century philosophers of science. Each of their valuable contributions provide different and complementary perspective for gaining deeper insights in to the very nature of our scientific knowledge. Also their works provide valuable guidance for improving the quality and quantity of the...
Computer science (software) was created as a religion because it was rooted in primordial sacred tenets or beliefs, which were never tested. Computer science (software) has been maintained as a religion by holding such beliefs as inalienable sacred tenets. Today software experts feel that it is heresy to question the validity of the sacred beliefs,...
In case of scientific research for expanding the boundaries of scientific or theoretical knowledge, mankind led to believe that any Truth (backed by irrefutable proof and evidence) is ultimate and always triumphs over myths, beliefs, unproven theories or axiomatic assumptions. In other words, if the science is a religion, then the only God for the...
The objective is to prove: Today computer science is not a real science. Also prove that computer science can become a real science. Hence computers science must be transformed into real science. First we need to answer these questions: What makes a science a real science? What are the differences between a real science and a not real science (or a...
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...
Could any scientist be a real scientist, if he/she thinks and implies that, there is nothing wrong in violating well established scientific processes, principles and widely accepted scientific rules? Isn’t it kind of like respected senior judges insisting that, there is nothing wrong in violating not only criminal laws of the nation but also essent...
Consequences of flawed Tacit Assumptions: The assumption “the Earth is static” was a classic example for such a tacit assumption. It was not consciously apparent to mankind until 500 years ago. That is, mankind was completely unconscious about this tacit assumption, when they were discussing about retrograde motions and epicycles. The name “geocent...
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 existing definitions for software components are never tested and never proven. But researchers use endless excuses to not...
In real science, anything (e.g. axiom) not having conclusive proof must be considered as no more than an assumption (even if the axiom is widely accepted as self-evident truth). A real proof requires irrefutable rational reasoning backed by predictable and repeatable empirical evidence. In real science, there is no self-evident Truths until each ax...
Researchers are doomed to repeat same mistake again and again until recognizing a simple scientific principle: In real science, anything (e.g. axiom or postulation) not yet proven must be treated as an assumption and must be documented for future generations to validate. Try to investigate and/or expose such undocumented or hidden axiom or postulat...
Software researchers and Scientists forgot a simple scientific fact/rule: In real science, anything not proven is an assumption. When any scientific field is in infancy, researchers have no choice but to make few educated assumptions (e.g. first principles). If such assumptions have fundamental errors and are not properly documented, future generat...
In light of the two irrefutable facts discussed, I request researchers of computer science and engineering to list each of the assumptions and reasons, why software components and CBD for software need different and strange new definitions, descriptions and concepts? If the assumption was: It is impossible to discover accurate descriptions (e.g. co...
Irrefutable reasoning to prove that the existing CBSD is a paradoxical paradigm resulted from relying on undocumented flawed assumptions
In real science, anything not having proof is an assumption and such assumptions must be documented before relying on them to create definitions/concepts.
Many people have been insisting that there must be a simple proof for my assertion that the existing definitions for software components and CBSD/CBSE are fundamentally flawed and for my discoveries of accurate descriptions for physical functional components and CBD of physical products. What kind of proof Galileo could provide to prove that the Su...
Thousands of years ago, mankind assumed that fundamentally flawed first principle ‘the Earth is static’ was an inalienable Truth. They relied on this first principle and had tried to advance the mankind’s scientific knowledge for thousand years. Scientific progress ended up in a ditch – Resulted in a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and evolut...
There is a huge misconception (in fact bordering fanatical conviction) among researchers and scientists that every critical fundamental concept (e.g. seed axiom or first principle at the root) of any modern scientific discipline was discovered and well tested before accepting it and to rely on it for further advancement of mankind’s scientific know...
Mankind’s knowledge in each of the scientific disciplines is created by relying on one or more first principles (by assuming that each of the first principles is an absolute Truth). For each scientific discipline, its first principles at the root and the first layer of basic scientific concepts (derived from the firs principles at the root) form sc...
The very purpose of scientific research is to evolve humankinds understanding (or perception) of reality closer and closer to absolute truth. It is like painting a clearer and clearer picture by using brighter colors (e.g. by research papers and results of experiments) to bring into focus blurred/invisible details of each small part/piece of very l...
The researchers of computer science and software engineering defined CBD (“Component Based Design”) for software is using software parts either having a given set of useful properties (e.g. reuse or standardized) or conform to a given so called component models. This effectively resulted in CBSE/CBSD (CBD for Software) is using software parts equiv...
The present invention discloses a system, method and program code product for efficient component-based application development. Presentation code of a container component is generated by a container-component code generator (container CCG), which uses the class objects of component code generators (CCGs) as subcomponents. The CCGs, as standalone m...
I have been looking for honest expert witnesses for my upcoming lawsuit against taxpayer funded agencies (e,g, NSF.gov and NITRD.gov) and ACM.org for their criminal negligence and violations of law (e.g. Consumer Product Safety Act).
Since the subversion of geocentric paradigm in the 17th century, dominant paradigm for no widely practised discipline ended up in a crisis (as an illusion like geocentric paradox) by committing this kind of fatal mistake: Having untested and unproven flawed beliefs as core first principles in its pre-paradigmatic foundation and acquiring and accumulating huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on those flawed core first principles.
Sadly Computer Science and software engineering committed this kind of fatal mistake (of having flawed beliefs as core first principles) and software engineering enduring devastating consequences. I can bet my like on this fact that Computer Science ended up as a fake science by relying upon flawed beliefs as first principles: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ModifiedKuhnBlackHolePhase.pdf
Let me briefly summarise my allegations using three facts that can conclusively prove my allegations. It is only summary of facts: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Lawsuit/ProofForAllegation.pdf.
Our evidence is primarily based on understanding cardinal rules for two different things (i) first principles for each academic discipline of science or engineering, and (ii) academic knowledge for any discipline of science or engineering.
Fallowing PDF documents provide not only background information (e.g. rules and conditions) but also essential nature and function of first principles for academic disciplines:
Conclusions: In case of disciplines of science and engineering, the cardinal rule is that core first principles must be valid and verifiable facts (e.g. supported by variable proof and valid evidences, which also must be open falsification). The richest and most successful inventor Elon Musk’s mantra is employing critical thinking and valid first principles: http://real-software-components.com/raju/BoK/ElonMuskSecretSauce.pdf
Fallowing PDF documents provide not only background information (e.g. rules and conditions) but also essential nature and function of academic knowledge for disciplines of science or engineering:
Conclusions: In case of disciplines of science and engineering, the cardinal rule is that academic knowledge must be tested and validated (e.g. must be supported by valid evidence and proof), but also open for falsification (if it is flawed). Any academic knowledge must be treated as junk, if the knowledge is not testable and falsifiable.
In case of Computer Science, sadly today it is taboo and forbidden to question or challenge untested and unproven received beliefs (i.e. myths about so called components and CBPs) that are use as core first principles. Furthermore, it is taboo and forbidden to provide scientific facts and observable evidence to falsify the academic knowledge acquired and accumulated by relying on the flawed core first principles. Hence, the academic knowledge is equivalent to junk and untrustworthy.
Conclusion: Computer science committed the most dreadful mistake, which is using untested and unproven flawed beliefs (e.g. about CBPs, and Components) as core first principles. No other kind of mistake is more dreadful and has more dreaded consequences. Except geocentric paradox, no other major discipline committed this kind of fatal mistake. – This rule (i.e. first principles must be proven and verifiable scientific facts) is the very foundation of the modern scientific method, since it was the most valuable lesson learned from the painful experiences (during the 17th century) that ushered in the greatest revolution. Nothing is more dreadful evil than Genocide of innocent. Likewise, no violation of scientific method is more dreadful than using flawed beliefs as first principles – It is genocide of basic principles of the scientific method.
I am willing to pay US$200/hour for couple of qualified scientists who are willing to give witness honestly and objectively about nature and function of “first principles” and “academic knowledge”. All they need to do is give evidence honestly and objectively, without being influenced by biased preconceived notions and prejudice.
I requested many researchers to be an expert witness to answer simple questions honestly and objectively, even if their answers and evidence is hostile to my allegations (by keeping in mind that it is a crime to lie under oath). Unfortunately, each of them turned out to be a fake scientist, and incompetent or scared of defending the truth, so refused to take witness stand and answer simple questions honestly and objectively.
I have been struggling to explain the truth and reality since 2008. If no one knows the truth and reality, it may not be hard to explain the truth. But, how is it possible to explain the truth and reality, if eminent researchers and experts resort to personal attacks and humiliation by considering the truth and reality to be sacrilegious.
If law permits, I am planning to file a lawsuit against NSF.gov and ACM.org. Our case is based on proving this fact: Today no one else knows valid basic truths (that are core first principles) for software engineering. Furthermore, these basic truths are widely perceived to be heretical, whenever the basic facts are introduced: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Lawsuit/ProofForAllegation.pdf
Sadly, Questioning and trying to expose flawed core first principles (i.e. basic truths) of any widely practiced discipline is considered sacrilegious: http://real-software-components.com/raju/CPSC/HereticalFirstPrinciples.pdf.
What it indicates, if emanant scientists and researchers feel offended by basic truth such as “Sun is at the canter” and about observable facts about CBPs and Components to build the CBPs? Isn’t it molestation of the basic truths and scientific principles, if they want to sabotage such truth and reality?
Objective of lawsuit is to expose the lies and deception, against who pretend to have not seen the physical CBPs (Component-Based Products) and Components, or those who argue that it is impossible to objectively describe CBPs and Components (that essential to build the CBPs).
Please see this incidence where a black teenager is humiliated in a brawl with a white kid: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/16/us/video-new-jersey-police-black-and-white-teen-fight-outrage/index.html. In many such fights, often white man is presumed to be innocent.
I have this kind of experience many times, such as, in software engineering conferences or when I submit my proposal to expose fundamentally flawed beliefs and flawed knowledge in textbooks.
The purpose of any academic discourse is finding truth. Racial bias is unscholarly and unacademic. Whenever I engage in a debate or discourse with a white professor (i.e. having doctorate), other professors blindly side with or join the white professor in a manner that humiliate me.
Isn’t it humiliating to face sarcastic statements, and condescending or patronizing attitude? I do not have doctorate, but I have been doing research for over 20 years on a new and unexplored dimension of software engineering.
The purpose of any academic discourse is finding the truth to gain valid and trustworthy knowledge. In any academic discourse, all parties engaged in the discourse must try to be on the side of truth. But often professors blindly take the side of white professors, without making any effort to be objective to find the truth.
I have been struggling for more than a decade to expose a simple mistake, which is root cause for software crisis. The right tool to measure weights accurately is weighing machines, but not measuring tapes. Likewise, not mathematical methods but scientific inquiry and scientific method are right methods for objectively testing and validating (or for falsification) of knowledge about nature, essential properties and anatomy of physical things and mechanisms that govern reality.
The attached 277-word BriefAbstract.pdf provides a very short summary for my lawsuit. I feel that these simple and obvious facts do not need any expert witnesses. I do not mind, if they presume that I am wrong, but they reach conclusion, without looking at evidence or facts.
One can overcome wrong presumption or skepticism, but it is impossible to overcome wrong conclusion (since they are no longer willing to investigate counter evidence or facts).
Admitted facts need no proof. It is an admitted fact that: Software researchers accumulated essential knowledge for software engineering (i.e. nature and essential properties of Components, anatomy of CBPs and necessary mechanisms of CBE) by violating proven rules and principles of the scientific method, and have been doggedly justifying the violation by insisting that Computer Science is branch of Mathematics.
Software researchers cannot deny such admitted facts. Even if anyone wants to deny, it is impossible to deny well documented facts: Even a casual or cursory reading of software textbooks conclusively proves the facts that the prevailing knowledge (e.g. about Components, CBPs and CBE) has no basis in reality.
Applicable adage in this case: An expert may lie, but not documents (i.e. textbooks). In fact, the prevailing knowledge is contrary to the scientifically observable reality and verifiable facts about physical Components, CBPs and CBE. To win the case, we need to prove the two simple facts in the attached Lawsuit2Fact.pdf.
How is it possible to invent real software components to build each software product as a CBP (i.e. by plugging in real software components)? Isn’t it like trying to draw pictures of elephants, without knowing what is an elephant (e.g. is it a tree, bird, fish, animal, statue or building)?
My case will be based on this fact: Today no one else in the world knows valid answers to simple questions such as What is a CBP (Component-Based Product), and what are the real components that are essential building blocks to build each CBP? For example, observable and indisputable valid facts: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/SoftwareStuckInDarkAges.pdf
These three facts are neither debatable nor disputable, considering the objective reality http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/HonestAnswer.pdfand simple verifiable facts of objective reality http://real-software-components.com/raju/ImportantFacts2.pdf.
I have been struggling for more than a decade to expose a fatal mistake (having dreadful consequences) committed by Computer Science more than 55 years ago.
I want to prove very simple and obvious fact, but the problem is, how to force research community to apply their mind. Researchers are blindly defending foolish mistakes by refusing to apply their mind.
It is indisputable fact that Computer Science is classified as a branch of pure mathematics. Acquiring and using scientific knowledge about Components and CBE by violating proven rules of scientific method is fiercely justified by insisting Computer Science is a branch of pure mathematics.
How can I make software researchers apply their mind to understand the simple logic in the attached PDF: It is essential for any academic discipline to “acquire and use trustworthy knowledge (that must be open to validation and falsification)”?
Software Crisis and spaghetti code can be addressed easily, if software researchers apply their mind by being open to reason and new evidence or facts.
It is possible to solve software crisis by eliminating its primary cause - spaghetti code, if I can find software researchers who knows what components and CBPs (Component-based products) are. Software crisis has been costing trillions of dollars to the global economy and killed hundreds of people during past 40 months.
I have been struggling for over a decade to find software researchers who have seen components and Component-based products, but no luck. I could not find software researchers having basic common-sense and knowledge of elementary principles or basic rules of the modern scientific method.
Today, no one in the world knows these simple verifiable facts about components, CBPs and CBE: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/SoftwareStuckInDarkAges.pdfconsidering objective reality http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/HonestAnswer.pdfand simple verifiable facts http://real-software-components.com/raju/ImportantFacts2.pdf.
In light of above reality, prevailing descriptions for components make no sense and are outright crazy http://real-software-components.com/raju/ComponentDefinitions2.pdfand http://real-software-components.com/raju/WhatIsComponent2.pdf.
I am wondering, which planet are these software researchers came from? I am sure any graduate of any science or engineering on this planet must have seen and know about Components, CBPs and CBE. Today obvious verifiable facts about Components, CBPs and CBE are widely perceived to be heretical: http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/SoftwareStuckInDarkAges.pdf
On the other hand, highly subjective terminology is used for each definition or description of software components in http://real-software-components.com/raju/WhatIsComponent2.pdf, so each definitions is being interpreted many in many different ways.
It is impossible to resolve the differences between the different interpretations, since there is no objective reference (e.g. a reference specie of physical component and CBP). For example, Botany textbooks defined or described large trees (e.g. that can be easily observed or more than 3CM in length) and wide range of subclasses of trees, we can use a concrete reference to resolve any differences in interpretation by observing the specimens of relevant class of trees.
Likewise, Zoology textbooks defined or described large animals (e.g. that can be easily observed or weighing more than 300 grams) and wide range of subclasses of the animals, we can use concrete reference specimens to resolve any differences in interpretation by observing the relevant class of animals. Based on my experience, components can be grouped into 3 to 5 trivial subclasses, while Zoology or Botany deals with 100s of times more diverse classes and subclasses of species, where each subclass is many times more complex.
To define and understand the description for animal subclass such as feline family (e.g. tigers, cheats or lions), it is possible to observe the animal species to minimize misinterpretation of terminology. Without concrete examples, it is very hard to provide and understand any description.
It is very hard to make sense of the description of Felidae in our science textbooks about Felidae for aliens, who have never seen the animal species. Existing vague or rough descriptions for so called software components are no different. There is so much subjectivity because software engineering needs to accommodate so many possible contexts, problem domains and scenarios.
Any real US lawyer must agree that it is an indisputable fact that raping minor girls is a major crime as per the US law. Likewise, any real scientist must agree that, in the context of the dominant paradigm for any major scientific or engineering discipline, it is a fatal mistake (as per the modern scientific method) to use and rely on fundamentally flawed beliefs as core first principles and would have pernicious consequences. Even basic scientific inquiry proves that the first principles about so-called software components, CBPs and CBE for software are fundamentally flawed: http://real-software-components.com/raju/CPSC/GeocentricAnalogy.pdf
Two material facts in the attached PDF conclusively proves that the software engineering is defective product that is responsible for hundreds of deaths and software education is defective service that has been causing huge harm to their careers and creativity by indoctrinating unsuspecting and impressionable students (and future software researchers) into the geocentric paradigm of software: http://real-software-components.com/raju/HugeHarmToStudents.pdf
Isn’t it sad and pathetic that I need to file a lawsuit to prove the most elementary principle that is at the very foundation of the modern scientific method: It is a fatal mistake to have and use fundamentally flawed core first principles to acquire and accumulate a huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for a dominant paradigm?
Researchers at NSF and ACM have hard time understanding basic principles that define or govern academic disciplines. At the very foundation any academic discipline there are set of core first principles, which are treated as basic truths or self-evident facts and the first principles function as DNA in shaping the BoK (Body of Knowledge) and paradigm of the discipline.
The modern scientific method was created in the 17th century by very researchers who were major players in the greatest scientific revolution and had experienced first-hand pain due to their struggle to expose flawed first principle (i.e. Earth is at the centre) in the foundation of the flawed dominant paradigm (i.e. geocentric paradigm) that was widely practiced by astrologers and astronomers.
In case of each branch of scientific disciplines, core first principles are testable, verifiable facts such as Sun is at the centre, speed of light and laws of nature such as Newton’s, Gravity and Quantum theory. Each of the first principle can be falsified (if it is flawed) by finding a valid and verifiable counter evidence.
Using and relying on one or more flawed first principles lead to inconsistence, contradictions or anomalies between theories, concepts or methods in the BoK (comprising of theories, concepts and methods) for the discipline, where each of the theories, concepts or methods in the BoK is acquired and accumulated by relying on the flawed first principle.
In case of each branch of mathematics, core first principles are set of mathematical axioms, which are used and relied as fundamental truths to acquire more and more new knowledge to expand BoK (Body of Knowledge). The essential condition that the set of mathematical axioms must satisfy is: The set of axioms together must be able to create a BoK (comprising of theories, concepts and methods) for a system that is internally consistent, without having any inconsistence, contradictions or anomalies between any two theories, concepts or methods.
Hence, it is the most elementary principle of the modern scientific method: It is a fatal mistake to have and use fundamentally flawed core first principles to acquire and accumulate a huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for a dominant paradigm? It is also a proven fact that it would have pernicious consequences, if a huge BoK has been acquired by relying on flawed core first principles.
The BoK (Body of Knowledge) in the textbooks (comprising of numerous theories, methods, and concepts) for each academic discipline, and each piece of knowledge would be acquired and accumulated by relying directly or indirectly on first principles in the foundation.
The starting point for acquiring each piece of new knowledge in the BoK is using one or more first principles as axiomatic premise. If any core first principle is fundamentally flawed, it is inevitable that each piece of knowledge (e.g. a theory, method, or concept) acquired by relying on the flawed first principle (as a premise) end up being flawed.
Isn’t it basic common sense that it is impossible to draw right or valid conclusions by relying on invalid or flawed premise (or postulation)? For example, accumulating knowledge for 1800 years by relying on 2300-year-old flawed promise (i.e. Earth is static at the centre) as first principles created flawed geocentric paradigm. Most of the knowledge accumulated for the 16thcentury geocentric paradigm was insidiously misleading and flawed.
First principles of each scientific discipline are basic truths that are used as seeds for relying upon to accumulate BoK (Body of Knowledge) for growing and evolving a paradigm for the discipline. The seed that “Earth is at the centre” can only grow geocentric illusion.
This is, it is impossible to grow heliocentric paradigm by planting and relying upon the fundamentally flawed seed: Earth is at the centre. Likewise, it is impossible to grow real CBE paradigm by planting and relying upon fundamentally flawed seeds about so-called components and CBPs for software.
The right seed was “Sun is at the centre” to understand the objective reality and scientific progress. The flawed first principle (i.e. The Earth is at the centre) diverted reseach efforts into a wrong path and basic science ended in in a crisis: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ModifiedKuhnBlackHolePhase.pdf.
Even high school level scientific inquiry proves these facts: Computer Science is a fake science because few core first principles (e.g. about so called software components, CBPs and CBE) are fundamentally flawed. Software Engineering is an oxymoron because it is based of flawed BoK (comprising of numerous flawed theories, concepts and methods) that has been acquired and accumulated for past 50 years by relying on the flawed core first principles.
To win my case and argument, I need to prove two material facts listed in attached PDF. If first principles about components are axioms, the axioms cannot be unjustified beliefs that tolerate contradiction or inconsistency between them. The definitions for so called software components violated this essential condition.
Prevailing first principle has no basic in reality or fact (but contrary to obvious reality) http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/HonestAnswer.pdf. The 3 first principles I used for inventing my patented solution that can address software crisis http://real-software-components.com/raju/Info/SoftwareStuckInDarkAges.pdf in light of the facts http://real-software-components.com/raju/ImportantFacts2.pdf .
There may be ambiguity in philosophy of Foundationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism) in soft sciences or pseudo sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, political science, ethics or morality) that deal with knowledge that is subjective in nature (e.g. justified beliefs).
But there is no such ambiguity in case of hard sciences (e.g. physics, biology, chemistry or astronomy) that deal with knowledge that is objective in nature (e.g. proven facts such as Sun is at the centre, speed of light and laws of nature such as Newton’s, Gravity and Quantum theory).
Scientific knowledge and facts about physical components, CBPs and CBE certainly falls under the realm of hard sciences, so it is possible to acquire and accumulate valid objective knowledge and facts (that can be objectively tested, calibrated or falsified, if they are flawed) by employing proven scientific inquiry. To prove this fact, I invented effective solutions for software crisis by accumulating and using valid objective knowledge and facts about components, CBPs and CBE.
In the context of hard sciences, almost every great scientist or philosopher of science directly or indirectly justified the well-documented and proven fact: It is a fatal mistake to have and rely on fundamentally flawed core first principles to acquire and accumulate new knowledge. In case of hard sciences, I cannot find any evidence that any real scientist has disagreed with this basic commandment and the most elementary cardinal rule (of the modern scientific method): Thou shalt not use and rely on core first principles that are fundamentally flawed.
My New Year Resolution is to free Software Engineering (grownup to be mighty technology) from “the Elephant Rope Syndrome”: http://real-software-components.blogspot.in/
What is science? Ans: Science is a very powerful, widely used and proven tool for acquiring and accumulating body of knowledge in certain domains or to address certain kinds or classes of problems, where acquiring and accumulating knowledge includes activities such as investigating evidence, observations, experimentation or proposing hypothesis to explore new areas for discovering new facts, gaining insights and wisdom. What is each scientific discipline? Ans: Each scientific discipline (e.g. botany, virology or bacteriology) is a body of knowledge (e.g. facts, insights and wisdom of a respective domains such as botany, virology or bacteriology) created by using science as a tool (i.e. by strictly following proven scientific processes and principles). All I am asking is use science (e.g. proven scientific methods) as tools for gaining useful knowledge for computer science and software engineering. This knowledge is extremely valuable foundation for technological progress and absolutely essential for engineering research to make useful inventions (i.e. for technological progress). No useful invention can be made (i.e. works as expected), if the foundation is flawed. Almost every useful medical or engineering invention or process is rooted in sound scientific knowledge. Every useful invention (e.g. ICs or fiber-optic networks) that is working better than expected (or at least as expected) is a testament to sound foundation and rooted in the body of scientific knowledge (e.g. proven facts). Today CBSD/CBSE is not working because it has been evolving for 45 years by relying on flawed facts. I believe, real CBSD rooted in sound scientific foundation can far exceed all our expectations. In spite of having “science” in computer science, researchers neither try to create body of scientific knowledge (or foundation) nor obey even basic scientific rules (i.e. processes and principles). In fact, computer science is a fake science, because it blatantly violated proven scientific rules. Not even the soft sciences violate scientific rules so blatantly. The body of knowledge for any real science or engineering discipline must be rooted in documented proven scientific facts. In real science, each and everything must be treated as an assumption, until it is proven by using irrefutable proof (supported by evidence); and the proof must be clearly documented, so that anyone can verify the proof in light of any evidence and falsify, if and when new anomalies or evidence is discovered. It is a blatant violation of scientific processes and principles to rely on unproven or undocumented beliefs for scientific or technological research. Only exception to this rule is: Any scientific hypothesis may rely on documented beliefs or assumptions for exploring new scientific frontiers for expanding boundaries of human knowledge, where also not documenting each and every belief as an assumption is a clear violation of scientific process. There must not be any ambiguity or doubt that, if each of the things used in scientific or engineering research is a fact (having known documented proof) or a belief. Therefore, body of scientific knowledge must not contain or rooted in unproven or undocumented beliefs. Nothing in the body of knowledge can be treated as a fact (e.g. to rely on it either for engineering or for scientific research), until each fact is supported by a documented proof. Any fact can no longer be a fact, if and when the documented proof is falsified by finding a demonstrable flaw. Purpose of engineering research is to invent useful things by relying on such solid body of scientific knowledge. So, such sound body of scientific knowledge is the very foundation for all technological or engineering progress.
- Dear Friends, - Today computer science has all the characteristics of pseudo-science. It has many unproven beliefs at the root (as its core scientific foundation). Software researchers blatantly violated and continue to violate basic scientific principles and process. Software researchers not only tolerate inexplicable anomalies and contradictions but vigorously defend the contradiction and also violations of basic scientific principles and process by using silly excuses (or more baseless beliefs) and insults (or personal attacks), instead of using facts to counter facts – Don’t real scientists required to use facts or evidence to counter facts or evidence. - It certainly passes the Duck test with flying colors: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like quintessential duck (e.g. has feathers, webbed feet and satisfies every other aspect), then what are the chances that it is not a duck? - Today saying computer science is a soft science is an insult to the soft sciences. Soft sciences don’t rely on (or rooted in) blatantly flawed beliefs. Even if the beliefs can’t be proved to be facts, researchers make sure that the beliefs are not so blatantly or obviously flawed. Existing definitions (e.g. nature and properties) for components and CBD are not only blatantly and obviously flawed but also insult to any real scientist (who has even basic knowledge of well-established, proven and widely practiced scientific principles and processes). Is it so hard to understand? - Please read my articles and questions for detailed information and proof. I am looking for real scientist who could join me in this noble effort to transform computer science from pseudo-science into real hard science. Transform computer into hard science leads to software engineering revolution and other great advancements in other fields such as AI (Artificial Intelligence). - Best Regards, Raju Chiluvuri