Dear Friends,
There is a very interesting article at https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress. There is very interesting point:
Quote from the article: "Many defenders of the scientific establishment will admit to this problem, then offer hymns to the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. Yes, the path is rocky, they say, but peer review, competition between researchers, and the comforting fact that there is an objective reality out there whose test every theory must withstand or fail, all conspire to mean that sloppiness, bad luck, and even fraud are exposed and swept away by the advances of the field."
Unfortunately advances of the field can't swept away certain kinds of sloppiness, ignorance or incompetency. In software, such sloppiness and ignorance driven advances of the field into a crisis (i.e. paradox of altered perception of reality - that is in clear contradiction to the objective reality).
Existing definitions, published conclusions or concepts for so called software components have no basis in objective reality. Existing definitions, published conclusions or concepts for so called CBD for software has no basis in objective reality.
Even though there is an objective reality out there, no one ever tried to know the objective reality: The nature and essential properties of physical components is objective reality. The nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products is objective reality.
The definitions (i.e. nature and essential properties) for components were made out of thin air nearly 50 years ago, by completely ignoring the objective reality. Which tests the definitions withstood and passed? No one ever tested the definitions. This is the tip (starting point) of the ponzi pyramid. The ponzi pyramid has been growing by adding thousands of published papers (i.e. conclusions, empirical results and/or observations to the BoK by relying on these flawed definitions) each subsequent decade.
The BoK (Body or Knowledge) for CBSD is a huge ponzi pyramid, without any basis in objective reality about the physical components and CBD for physical products. Software has similar ponzi pyramid for AI (Artificial Intelligence) without having any basis in objective reality about the neurons or neural networks. The existing CBSD is only growing stronger every year covering up the objective reality deeper and deeper.
The software researchers keep feeding the ponzi pyramid by refusing to even know the objective reality (or even common sense) about the nature and true essence of CBD. The objective reality can expose the error, but the researchers feel that the objective reality is irrelevant. How can any one expose Ponzi pyramids in the Body of Knowledge for scientific or engineering disciplines?
I like couple of quotes from the article: "What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created—with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck—pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. Even if a critic is able to get his work published, pointing out that the house you’ve built together is situated over a chasm will not endear him to his colleagues or, more importantly, to his mentors and patrons."
Most only interested in publishing papers buttress their resumes and career. Another quote from the article: "Careers attract careerists, in Feyerabend’s words: “devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood of inane papers that now constitutes ‘scientific progress’ in many areas.” "
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science