Now I'm sure you'll get better answers than mine but I just wanted to clarify a point. You are basically implying that the principles on which most of the modern science is based are wrong or flawed right? Why not just prove it?

I think there's a great difference between now and the 16th century. "Principles" back then where just assumed to be true and the implications coming from said principles where not verified. Today the use of the scientific method allow us to validate the principles on which our thesis are based. The validation comes from the repetitive experimental proofs we are getting applying science based on those principles. We basically find that such implications actually fit in and represent reality quite well.

If you found that different principles could bring to a better understanding and/or to a better description of reality, you just need to prove it. No-one will call you insane or a scammer. That's actually what Copernicus did back in the days. He observed the world, found inconsistencies, and fixed them by applying a new set of rules.

It's a fundamental characteristic of science to question our beliefs and our knowledge, and that's actually the right way to go. But doubting what we know can't be good, and can only bring to stagnation, as we need some kind of certainty to progress.

Dear Mr. Casali,

My question is what is the greatest contribution of Copernicus? I believe (and clearly said) that it is extremely unlikely that basic sciences to have flawed first principles. But I believe fledgling scientific disciplines (e.g. computer science) are in nascent stages and likely to have flawed first principles.

Please understand the effort gone into exposing the error: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology. I am not disputing Copernicus succeeded eventually. I am sure we all agree that any scientific Truth would prevail eventually. In 21st century, can we afford to wait for 100 years to expose even obvious flaws (at such a huge pain)?

Don’t researchers need to know, what are the first principles at the root? For example, very few experts in 16th century would name that “the Earth is static” is one of the first principle. Researchers must know, what are the first principles, for validating each of the first principles. Ask any scientist of computer science to name, what is the first principle at the root of software engineering in general and CBSE in particular? I believe, no one would name first principles having fundamental flaws.

Best Regards,

Raju

I guess I didn't really take the point of what you're trying to say then. Are you trying to speak about a specific branch of science or are we speaking of the scientific method as a whole? You're making strange analogies if you're specifically talking about computer science and comparing it to assumptions made in the 16th century. I don't think it really fits.

But the main problem is probably the fact that I have no clue about computer science which can't make me fully understand your point. But I think that what I said before still stands, what's the point of doubting principles in computer science? You are free to question them, find those specific flaws you're talking about and expose them (maybe you've already done so and I just didn't figure it out). I sure hope that someone more competent than me will hop on the discussion and further clarify it.

Dear Mr. Casali,

I believe, the knowledge of first principles is essential for structured scientific analysis and to keep the scientific progress on right tracks. Without knowing what are the first principles (e.g. for a newly discovered sub-branch of a scientific discipline), it is harder to question the validity.

In other words, many researchers might question/test validity of first principles, if a list of the first principles and description of each of the first principles are readily available.

When any scientific discipline is in infancy, researchers are forced to make many assumptions (i.e. first principles). Odds are, there could be errors in some of the assumptions (i.e. first principles), but most of the errors would be caught and eliminated quickly. However one or two (e.g. the Earth is static) might be hard to find and goes undetected for centuries.

Without consciously knowing that they have been relying on an untested erroneous assumption (i.e. first principle that “the Earth is static”), mankind created a complex reality as illustrated by FIG-1: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

It is extremely unlikely, any such undetected error still exist in mature scientific disciplines. But such undetected errors most likely exist in newly discovered or invented scientific sub-branches or scientific disciplines.

The best way and easiest way to uncover erroneous first principles is finding and listing all the first principles. For example, since mid 1960s computer scientists defined many kinds of software components, where each kind of software components is either software parts having given useful properties (e.g. reusable or standardized) or conforming to a so called component model.

These definitions have no basis in reality or fact. They just assumed that software is different or unique, without ever trying to investigate why and in what manor software products are different. In other words, a subconscious assumption was that it is impossible to create components equivalent to the physical functional components.

If this first principle is known and justifications to support this first principle were documented, I am sure, many researchers could have discovered accurate description of physical functional components and invented equivalent software components.

But no one could even name such ‘first principles’ that are at the root of software engineering in general and CBSE in particular. I believe, this kind of things could happen in any other fledgling sub-branches of science. For example, one or more first principles used in string theory might be flawed (i.e. it is very unlikely but not impossible).

It could be genuine mistake – how could any one 2000 years ago suspect that the Earth is moving. It didn't even occur to them that it is an assumption, which needs to be verified.

Likewise no one saw the need to verify the ‘first principles’ at the root of CBSE. Such forgotten assumptions made in mid 1960s are first principles at the root of CBSE. They defined the nature and properties of so called software components, without any basis in reality (e.g. ignoring every thing we know about physical functional components/CBD and often in contradiction to the reality).

Today no one even knows, what are the first principles at the root of CBSE, no different from, what is the first principle at the root of mankind’s perception of reality (i.e. geocentric model) 500 years ago.

No one even knows/believes that it was just an assumption, which needs to be verified. I have hard time understanding, why there was so much resistance to find the first principles at the root of CBSE.

If we forget the history, I am sure this kind of situation likely repeat in other emerging scientific or engineering disciplines.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Casali,

I have been thinking about what you said and I realized that there are two kinds of ‘first principles’ (1) proposed or discovered first principles, for example “there exits a force of attraction between any two bodies of mass” was proposed by Newton, and (2) ‘first principles’ considered obvious facts by collective wisdom of mankind based on best available information and circumstances existed at that time, for example “the Earth is Static”. No one proposed it, the experts collectively assumed that it is an obvious self-explanatory fact.

Obviously newly discovered or proposed ‘first principles’ are well known and well tested before accepting them. If you or me propose a discovery, it will be well tested and accepted (as long as it didn't contradict any of the concepts of existing knowledge base). Discoveries of Copernicus were not accepted for 100 years, because it contradicted facts of then existing knowledge base.

Mankind might assume certain ‘first principles’ are obvious self-explanatory facts based on best available facts and circumstances at that time. A fraction of such ‘first principles’ might turnout to be flawed. It is hard to know which of such facts (considered obvious and self explanatory) can be proved wrong by using latest advancements in technological inventions and scientific knowledge.

For example, invention of telescope and discoveries such as Galileo moons helped test the validity of then newly proposed first principle “the Sun is at the center”. Likewise, computer science and software engineering made substantial progress (e.g. invention of powerful Object Oriented Programming and advanced GUI platforms), it is not hard to create real software components equivalent to the physical functional components for achieving real CBD for software products, which is equivalent to the CBD (Component-Based Design) of large physical products.

I am sure every one knows the ‘first principles’ that are discovered and proposed. But it is not so easy to know the other kind of ‘first principles’. We need to reverse engineer starting from top to reach find suspects (i.e. the ‘first principles’ considered facts long time ago) located at the root.

Best Regards,

Raju