When scientists and researcher were clearly informed about a flaw (e.g. a lie) in the existing scientific knowledge, can they continue to propagate the lie (e.g. teaching the lie to the students) by refusing to investigate the Truth?
In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through his improved telescope (where the powerful improvements were invented by Galileo). "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."
The geocentric paradigm evolved for over 1000 years by relying on untested belief “the Earth is static”. Relying on a belief is violation of basic scientific processes and rules. Any scientific research that relies on such flawed belief ends up in a wrong path. If the researchers don’t realize the flaw and try to advance the scientific field by applying brute force (i.e. hard work of thousand of researchers) the scientific field ends up in a crisis.
In the history of science, there is no exception to this rule: Trying to advance any scientific field (by relying on flawed belief) is a fool’s errand. It is wrong to rely on untested beliefs, because whole effort would be wasted if the belief is flawed.
If the flawed belief was not detected for long time, the scientific discipline eventually ends up in crisis – A complex paradigm comprising tens of thousands of observations and concepts - A perception of altered reality, which is in clear contradiction with the reality. It is nearly impossible for scientists to accept the reality.
The whole paradigm would be flawed, if the beliefs at the root can be proved are untested and flawed. When relying on untested beliefs is a huge error, don’t researchers have obligation to investigate the Truth, when they are informed that the beliefs were never tested (and they admit that the beliefs are untested)? Can they continue to propagate the lie, even when they have clear evidence that it is a lie (by ignoring the evidence by using evasive excuses)?
Existing paradigm for CBSE/CBSD (Component Based Software Design) have been evolving for nearly 50 years by relying on many untested beliefs such as design of software products are different and unique, or it is impossible to invent real software components to achieve real CBD for software (without even knowing the nature and essence of true CBD). How can any one say it is impossible, without even knowing what it is?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
I believe that scientists should look for what is true, defend the Truth, propagate the Truth. They must expose what is false as a fake, and not lend their voices to defend flawed beliefs. But human nature being as it is, scientists may not like to admit their errors.
I appreciate your clear descriptions. Close to my field is the sugar or cholesterol controversy. It took so many years for the Truth to be revealed; millions of people have lost their good health by believing the lie by which Big Pharma profits.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cholesterol-u-turn-as-research-shows-fatty-foods-might-not-be-bad-for-us-after-all-10277837.html
We are fortunately beyond the days of Kepler and Galileo, and have come to understand that whatever scientific facts we claim are real have to be demonstrable and repeatable. So, phenomena which can't be duplicated should be suspect.
I do have a problem with these "truths" you talk about, because that too often leads to religious beliefs that are anything but proven.
Science is not religion. What we think is "scientific truth" today may change tomorrow, with new evidence. It makes no sense to insist that something is absolute "truth," just because the evidence today points in that direction. The best we can do is go with the preponderance of the evidence, and keep an open mind.
Dear Mr. Manfredi,
Thank you for you insightful answer. Isn’t it we expect in the 21st century that “Scientists are beyond the days of Kepler & Galileo”? Don’t pursuit of Truth must be guided by demonstrable & repeatable scientific facts, rather than prejudice & beliefs?
But I can prove computer science in general and CBSD (Component Based Software Design) has been guided not by facts but prejudice and beliefs. Before going into details, let me remind some background. Few thousand years ago mankind justifiably concluded that “the Earth was static”. By relying on this conclusion, they tried to understand the reality for over 1000 years that eventually resulted in a complex geocentric paradoxical paradigm – An altered perception of reality as shown in Fig-1: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html.
The FiG-4 depicts our perception of reality today. The question never was, which planet is at the centre. They believed that “the Earth is static”. They have a valid justifications such as, if the Earth is moving, how could the Moon follow (why the Moon was not left behind). Kindly recall Galileo’s defiant murmur “Still it moves”. Also kindly understand how complex it is to expose a flawed belief at the root of a deeply entrenched paradigm and conventional wisdom: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology.
Today no one would possible believe that Kepler’s laws were speculative, especially in the light ingenious 2nd and 3rd laws. It took him nearly a decade to propose the 3rd law alone. Don’t you agree he must had tested 100 times to come up with such a precise law? The researcher who heard it first time perceived it to be speculative, but it can’t be speculative for Kepler (who spent many years reconfirming it).
Two completely different perceptions of realities (i.e. Geocentric paradigm and Heliocentric paradigm) emerged by relying on two different root postulation (i.e. “the Earth is at centre” and “the Sun is at the centre”.
Now let’s come to CBSD: Dr. Douglas McIlroy’s speech in ‘1968 NATO software engineering conference’ on “Mass produced software components” is credited one of the catalysts for launching research on ‘software components’ and CBSE (Component-Based Software Engineering). Software Engineering is in crisis because researchers 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 3rd party component vendors. They assumed that it is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof. Other experts named it Software-ICs (i.e. analogues to ICs that are used for building computers or cell-phones).
This research reuse-centric model spanning about 50 years resulted in many times more complex paradoxical paradigm than the geocentric paradigm. Many times more productive research effort is invested during past 50 years on reuse-centric model than geocentric-model for 1000 years. For example, today researchers are far more productive because of global collaboration. But 1000 years ago, researcher in north India don’t know what researcher in south India know. The researchers in Italy don’t know what researchers in China know. This leads to huge duplication of wasted efforts. May be handful of researchers were trying to understand the reality by using primitive tools, as opposed to tens of thousands of researchers at any time working on real CBSD (not including millions of software engineers like me).
Our pursuit for truth must be guided by facts rather than beliefs. For example, let me summarize few facts: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html
Let’s call existing CBSD paradigm “reuse-centric-model”. Let me refer to a new model as “replaceable centric model”: The true essence of an ideal CBD for physical products is encapsulating over 90% of the features and functionality of the physical product is optimal size functional components, where each component can be easily un-plugged (or disassembled) and re-plugged-in (or reassembled).
Let me give few relevant facts: Neither complexity nor uniqueness of one of any kind physical product can’t prevent the designers form achieving CBD-structure (or hierarchy of replaceable components): http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html. In short, cost of disassembling or reassembling must be under 10% of the design of the product. How must it costed to design first working model of Boeing 787? I am sure it would be several billion dollars. How must it costs to completely dis-assemble or re-assemble a Boeing 787? I am sure, it can be dis-assembled under US$100 million – Less than 3% of its design and development.
It is not necessary that even a single large component in the hierarchy of replaceable components is either re-usable or conform to any so called software component models.
The CBSD researchers set themselves a goal to build software product by using reusable components. This resulted in existing CBSD paradigm – Existing perception of reality. If CBSD researchers set out a goal of achieving hierarchy of replaceable components, a completely new perception of reality emerges. It requires a gestalt shift in our perception of reality.
My research effort spanning over 15 years is achieving CBD-stricture for software products. Any such effort needs creating new tools and technologies. For example, enabling inventions for interchangeable components includes tools such as Jigs, castings, mouldings, dies and forgings etc.
Likewise, it is impossible to achieve real CBSD without real software components. So I invented first GUI technologies in the world that is capable of creating real-software-components. No other GUI technology (e.g. from Microsoft or Apple) is capable of creating real software components for COP: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming
One of our tools was, in fact, inspired by Boeings software to resolve incompatibility of components in the field. Please see FiG-3: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html . This tool not only eliminates implementing any communication code between Objects in an executable but also intelligent to detect any coupling incompatibilities. This may be used during testing and then asked to generate communication code for production release.
Many experts like you asked demonstrable and repeatable proof. So I started Pioneer-soft.com to build a small team to create most advanced GUI technologies in the world. Our engineers now creating large real software components (having dozens of reusable GUI components) every day, where such real software components need about 3 lines of code to plug-in/un-plug as illustrated here: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html. No additional communication code is required by using a simplified CASE-tool.
Anyone can freely download and use our GUI library for creating real-software-components. If hundred replaceable components (i.e. real-software-components) are created, it requires about under 500 lines code to assemble the 100 replaceable components (i.e. about 3 to 5 lines for each component). Even junior Java programmers can build and maintain more complex GUI application than practical for experienced teams at best companies such as Google.
If everyone refuse to see proof, how anyone can show proof. It is not hard to prove that it is possible to achieve CBD-structure. I 100% agree with you that our pursuit of Truth guided by demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts, rather than prejudice and beliefs?
-------------------------
You said: Science is not religion. What we think is "scientific truth" today may change tomorrow, with new evidence. It makes no sense to insist that something is absolute "truth," just because the evidence today points in that direction. The best we can do is go with the preponderance of the evidence, and keep an open mind.
-------------------------
I mostly agree with you, with few exceptions. You need to have certain absolute truths. For example, there exists a force of attraction between any two things have mass. The force attracting increases, if the mass increases, while decreases, if the distance increases. Don’t you agree these are absolute truths? Newton quantified the force of attraction that is True for most practical purposes but Einstein discoveries showed slight anomalies in certain rare situation.
It is helpful to have broader guiding absolute Truths to discover the measurable absolute Truths. It is absolute Truth that the force of attraction decreases as distance increases (a general absolute Truth to guide research), even if the force decreases inversely proportional to square of the distance is not absolute Truth (but very close to the absolute Truth). Hope you can see the finer distinction.
My guiding absolute Truth is: There exists just one accurate description for each and every physical being such as light or electrons (including physical components). The purpose of scientific research is to discover absolute Truth. We know lot of facts about the nature of light, but we still need to know lot more facts (e.g. how it can be particles and wave). Likewise, we know lot of facts about the nature of electron, but we still need to know lot more facts about electron, so researchers are perusing the Truth by proposing theories like string-theory to understand its internal structure.
Likewise, I learned a lot of facts about the nature of physical functional components and CBD of physical products, but I agree still lot more facts can be learned. Our learning must be rooted in facts and guided by facts, rather than wishful thinking or beliefs. Existing definitions for software components are rooted in the 1968 NASA conference’s wishful thinking, rather than facts.
Almost every software researcher admits that existing CBSD paradigm is rooted in beliefs. For example, In his email dated 4-Jun-2010 to me, Dr. Clemens Szyperski (other of famous books and papers on CBSE) said: “CBSE (by definition of the CBSE community, which is, like any other definition, just words that some set of folks agree on)”.
Can a set of folks agree on laws of nature (existing phenomena) or essential properties, without try to properly studying the phenomena and discover the truths/facts? Why is it any different from agreeing that the Earth is static at the centre of the Universe and insisting on using the agreed definition to explain the planetary motion or laws of physics (e.g. gravitational force)?
The problem is that almost no software researcher disputed that the existing CBSD is rooted in beliefs, but refusing to investigate the facts that leads to Truth. I contacted hundreds of researchers and government funded research organizations such as NSF.org, NITRD.org, CMU/SEI, DoD or DARPA for many time during past few years. They refuse to give me an opportunity to demonstrate evidence. How anyone can show proof, if scientists refuse to investigate Truth by examining demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts.
I agree with you: Any scientific or technological research must be guided by demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts. The research effort must go wherever facts take. But software researchers trying invent facts that could lead to wishful thinking (e.g. Software-ICs). Researchers can only discover facts, but how can they invent facts to suite wishful thinking (i.e. in pursuit of a fantasy)? I put all the facts openly in websites and freely providing all necessary Tools for achieve real-CBSD. I am prepared to provide whatever fact is needed to expose this flawed belief.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Article Brief Introduction to COP (Component Oriented Programming)
Dear Friends,
I believe that real CBSD revolutionize software engineering. Mr. Manfredi’s insightful advice made me find more facts. I would like to provide couple of more interesting facts. The percentages in the following examples are approximations, so may very slightly but not by very much:
I read that, Boeing 747 has couple of million components. But MS-Word has just fewer than 2000 real-software-components of size City_GIS for a city http://www.pioneer-soft.com/realairtraffic. MS-Word crashes once a month. The cause of crash 90% times is internal design flaw. Any Aircraft crashes once in 2 million takeoffs. The cause of crash 90% of times is external factors such as bad weather, human error, wear & tear or terrorism etc.
Today only about 5% of the large real-software-components (e.g. of size City_GIS of a City) in an application can be disassembled (e.g. to redesign and test individually outside of the product), hence implemented as spaghetti code (i.e. not in a replaceable component that can be un-plugged). Over 90% of the features and functionality of large physical products is implemented as replaceable components, which can be dissembled (e.g. to redesign and test individually outside of the product free from the product).
I believe, the moto of the FBI investigators is, investigation will go wherever the facts lead. In science and engineering we deal with facts that are certainly reproducible, conducive to apply sound logical reasoning to predict results and results can be demonstrated. Any researcher or scientist must investigate the evidence with open mind in pursuit of Truth and investigation must go wherever the facts lead. But CBSD researchers pre-judged the Truth (i.e. true nature & essence of CBD and components) nearly 50 years ago and have been trying in fabricate facts to satisfy the pre-judged Truth for 50 years - They failed and it will be impossible for them to succeed.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Article How/Where “Real Scientists” can be found, who earned Ph.D du...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Software