Dear Friends,

Please read this outstanding synopsis for the famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science of 20th century: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html.

The first paragraph of this synopsis of the influential book says:

A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind.

[Mistake-1] Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...

[Mistake-2] To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations.

[Mistake-3] Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".

For example, each and every book on software and research paper in the world have been teaching that “parts that are designed and/or conducive to be reusable are components” and “CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of a product is using such so called components (i.e. parts that can be reusable) for building the product”.

Now every researcher in the world strenuously and devotedly working hard to force the nature into the conceptual boxes (i.e. boundaries or Body Of knowledge of existing dominant paradigm) supplied by their flawed education. Their perception is shaped by their decades of work and experience that are within the conceptual boxes, which are BoK (Body of Knowledge) being accumulated for the paradigm.

Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Popper are considered two of the greatest 20th century philosophers of science. Dr. Popper works describe ideal scientific process in the perfect world, while Dr. Kuhn describes imperfect states of scientific knowledge (due to human imperfections such as biases, prejudice or preconceived notions). No one in the world can prove that this statement is wrong: Software researchers have been committing all 3 mistakes above described by Dr. Kuhn’s book.

Researchers violently oppose or viciously attack any thing that oppose or in contradiction with their sacred received beliefs (or suppositions) such as a discovery of any novel fact that is outside of the conceptual boxes (i.e. BoK accumulated for the dominant paradigm rooted in the suppositions), for example, by resorting to hostile attacks to suppress novelties that are often obvious facts.

For example, isn’t it an obvious fact: No part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled, in the context of CBD/CBE (Component Based Engineering or Design and development) of any product such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, equipment for office or medical such as printers, MRIs, X-Ray, scanners, machines or machinery for factory.

In other words, parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled for building the products are known (i.e. referred to or named) as components. So, no part can be called as a component, if it is not designed or conducive to be assembled (even if the part has many other useful properties such as reusable).

Today, no known kind of so called components for software applications or products are designed and/or conducive to be assembled by any stretch of imagination. It is an error to argue that the CBD/CBE of software products is using such fake components, which are not conducive to be assembled.

This kind of errors prevented software researchers from inventing real components that can be assembled and from building software products by assembling such real components for software.

One of the greatest invention (or thing) known to mankind for increasing manual productivity is using specific kind of parts, that can be assembled and disassembled, for designing or engineering and building (i.e. CBD/CBE) of countless products we use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, equipment for office or medical such as printers, MRIs, X-Ray, machines or machinery for factory. In the context of CBD/CBE of any of the products, very specific kind of parts, that can be assembled and disassembled, are widely known as components.

The two proven facts for subverting a dominant paradigm are:

(1) Any dominant paradigm (of scientific or engineering disciplines) can be and must be subverted, if the BoK (Body of the Knowledge) for the dominant paradigm is accumulated by relying on fundamentally flawed first principles.

(2) It most certainly leads to unprecedented scientific or technological revolution, if a deeply entrenched dominant scientific or engineering paradigm is subverting.

Unfortunately, I have been learning hard way that, any efforts for subverting a deeply entrenched dominant paradigm faces unprecedented vicious hostilities and resistance from research community (even in the 21st century), for example, like any social revolution to subvert dominant entrenched ruling regime.

A paradigm can become a dominant paradigm, only (i) if it accumulates huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for making the paradigm dominant by relying on a set of complimentary and interdependent set of basic principles and (ii) if it evolves for long-enough time-period to become deeply entrenched into the collective wisdom and conscious of the research community. The basic principles that were used as foundation might become invisible or hidden under the huge BoK by disappearing from collective consciousness of research community.

The basic principles are the very foundation for the dominant paradigm, because large portions of the huge BoK for the paradigm are accumulated by relying on the set of basic principles. The dominant paradigm can be subverted, if a sub-set of basic principles (i.e. that are part of the very foundation) are fundamentally flawed.

Each of the pieces of the knowledge in the BoK end-up flawed, if the knowledge is rooted in (or accumulated by relying on) one or more flawed basic principles. For example, any paradigm rooted in flawed hypotheses (e.g. the Earth is at the center or reusable parts are components for CBD/CBE of products) leads to a paradox and end up in crisis.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri