Dear Friends,
Isn’t it wrong to snub, sabotage and/or refuse to verify a heretical truth (if skeptical or suspicious) when the truth is not hard to verify, where a heretical Truth imply that it is a fact that challenges conventional wisdom and is perceived to be heresy (in the context of prevailing dominant paradigm), and the Truth can be proved to be a fact beyond any reasonable doubt by preponderance of evidence, reasoning and observable facts.
For example, assume that it is possible to subvert a dominant paradigm by proving the verifiable fact “234567*765432 = 179,545,087,944” (I.e. multiplication of 234567 with 765432 is equals 179,545,087,944). It may be bit harder to verify this fact manually without a calculator, but not impossible to verify the fact. Is it ethical to snub, sabotage and/or refuse to verify such a heretical fact, when the fact is not hard to verify?
It is extremely painful, if large number of brilliant researchers are incapable of understanding (or pretend to be incapable of understanding) simple logical facts. What else I can do, if experts refuse to verify (or incapable of verify) simple verifiable facts (e.g. 567*765 = 433,755), in addition to offering to face criminal prosecution, if I am wrong.
My whole proof/argument rests on 2 simple verifiable objective logical facts, which are:
(1) Striking and fundamental difference between an engineering paradigm that certainly belongs to category of CBE (Component-Based-Engineering) paradigm, and another engineering paradigm that certainly belongs to other category of Non-CBE paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf
(2) The core/root cause for, why dominant paradigm for any scientific or technological discipline inevitably and certainly ends up as a fake science (i.e. the geocentric paradox of the discipline filled with inexplicable epicycles and retrograde motions): http://real-software-components.com/raju/ModifiedKuhnBlackHolePhase.pdf (Kindly refer to the figure in 1st page and description for the figure in 2nd page).
Kindly understand and don’t forget that it is gross negligence, if researchers at taxpayer funded research organizations continue to ignore, snub or sabotage such logical facts. Such gross, if not criminal negligence, certainly would continue to cost trillions of dollars to the global economy and likely cost many more lives in the future: http://real-software-components.com/raju/SoftwareApocalypse2.pdf
Other costs include irreparable harm to (i) the creative possibilities and/or outcomes of countless research efforts in the right path of brilliant young researchers, and (ii) productivity, and creative possibilities of millions impressionable students (e.g. who will be either future researchers of computer science, or practitioners of craft of software engineering), who are being indoctrinated (by academic institutions around the world) into the geocentric paradoxes of computer science and software engineering disciplines.
I am helpless, if experts stubbornly refusing to verify (or incapable of verifying) such logical facts objectively. Each such fact may be a little brain teaser (e.g. like verifying a fact such as “3456*6543 = 22,612,608” without using a calculator) and needs to apply mind. It is certainly not hard for any researcher having a doctorate or brain😊 to verify.
What else anyone can do to compel scientists and researchers (who are working at taxpayer funded organizations that are being funded by taxpayers for finding, promoting and/or supporting scientific and technological progress) to investigate evidence for such simple logical facts, in addition to offering to face criminal prosecution, if one is wrong? (e.g. http://real-software-components.com/raju/BriefObjectiveExecicutiveSummary.pdf)
I am disparate that even open to offering bribes ☹, if bribes work 😊 (and if the bribes can be structured to pay legally as gifts or shares of new company for services). I am sure, campaign contributions (in many cases) are thinly veiled bribes. I am sure, court case could work better, but court case would take more time and money than a bribe.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Well Raju, the fact is that the only way to change the attitude of politically brainwashed individuals is to leave them alone and concentrate on teaching, although that is a great challenge.
Dear Dr. Winterhalter,
Thank you for your kind reply. When mankind assumed that “the Earth is static at the center” 2300-years ago (during pre-paradigmatic phase), we ended up in the mess of geocentric paradox.
Likewise, software researchers made flawed presumptions such as “reusable parts” are components 50 to 60-years ago (during pre-paradigmatic phase), and ended up in the following mess:
Today software ended up defining Civil engineering paradigm for construction of buildings is Component-based-engineering paradigm. Even Civil engineers think that Civil engineer is a Component-based-engineering paradigm, but many software experts insist Civil engineer is a Component-based-engineering paradigm.
On the other hand, design and development of automobiles is Not-Component-based-engineering paradigm, since most of the core components are custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally just one product model such as Camry, Corolla or Accord.
Since the components are not-reusable, automobile or mechanical engineering paradigms don’t fit the descriptions for Component-based-engineering paradigm for software.
How anyone can fix this mess, when researchers who published papers deliberately ignore and/or supress counter evidences that falsify their published works: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_ethical_for_any_researcher_to_continue_promoting_peer_reviewed_and_published_work_if_new_valid_counter_evidences_can_falsify_the_work
P.S: I sent attached email to many researchers, who published many papers in respected research journals.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Friends,
I greatly appreciate your thoughts on continuation question at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_expose_zombie_dominant_paradigm_of_a_scientific_or_technological_discipline
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic