I feel, any research scientist having Ph.D in any modern scientific discipline must surrender his Ph.D, if he denies or ignores any fact (backed by irrefutable proof) by relying on belief/faith (which is not supported by irrefutable proof).
There is interesting summary for “Belief vs. Fact” at: http://faculty.valenciacollege.edu/drogers/factopinion/belieffact3.html and also at: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
A fact is something that must be tangible, independently observable/testable and/or backed by irrefutable evidence and/or irrefutable reasoning (for which it is impossible to find anything that can contradict the fact or falsify the fact). A belief/faith often not backed by proof and/or nearly impossible to either prove or falsify. Anything having no proof (or impossible to find a proof) is a belief.
In real scientific disciplines, there is little or no room for any belief or faith. Any newly discovered facts always triumph over belief or faith (even if the belief is widely accepted for decades and concluded to be self-evident fact), which is not backed by conclusive evidence that is independently observable/testable and supported by irrefutable reasoning.
Unfortunately many research scientists blindly defend their beliefs (that are not supported by any proof and impossible to find anyone ever even tried to validate the belief) and deny any fact (that can falsify their beliefs) by refusing to investigate the fact backed by irrefutable evidence and reasoning.
Is it acceptable, if scientist refuse to investigate facts that can expose his/her flawed believes (that are not based on reality or backed by evidence but concluded to be a fact due to blind faith)? Does such pseudo scientist deserve his/her Ph.D, if he/she have a Ph.D in a scientific discipline? If answer is No, do the researchers of computer science deserve their Ph.Ds, for example, for blindly defending their baseless belief system related to software components and Component Based Software (without ever even trying to provide any evidence to back their beliefs)?
Everyone agrees with the belief is an acceptable justification (even if the belief is in clear contradiction to reality we know about physical functional components and CBD of physical products)? Every one believed that the Earth is static, but now we know it was wrong. Every one agree that it was wrong to prosecute Galileo and others for offering proof, but repeat the same mistake by refusing to see proof that exposes flaws in their beliefs (for which they readily admit have no proof or no proof is required).
I can’t understand why they refuse to see proof for facts that expose flawed beliefs, when they readily admit that their beliefs/faith has no proof. Can any real research scientist having Ph.D (in a modern 21st century scientific discipline that is foundation for software engineering and technology) do that?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Article What is true essence of Component Based Design?
Article Software researchers practising bad science by relying on un...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Software