Dear Friends,

       Summary of the Scandal: It is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved computer science (software) problems without expanding the theoretical foundation by acquiring certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge. Example for unsolved problems include real-CBD (Component Based Design) or real-AI (Artificial Intelligence). Certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge (to address certain unsolved problems) can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software researchers have been insisting that computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics and refusing to use any other methods (except mathematics) for acquiring knowledge for expanding the theoretical foundation in order to facilitate software inventions for solving any unsolved problems.

             Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could anyone draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how it works or looks like? For example, a painter could say whether he can pain XYZ or not, only after seeing XYZ. The software researchers have no clue what is XYZ (e.g. real CBD), but insist it is impossible to invent XYZ (e.g. real-CBD for software).  

               Without ever even trying, how can anyone insist that knowledge acquired by using scientific methods is useless for addressing such unsolved problems? Isn’t it (i.e. refusing to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge) shocking and scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved problems? I can prove that it is a trivial task to invent solutions for few unsolved problems, if such missing pieces of knowledge is acquired by using scientific methods.

             Kindly allow me to illustrate this by using an example: For example, the infamous software crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components.

            The reason for the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models of next generation jet-fighters.

                The essential properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods), it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable proof backed by evidence.

           This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved problems of software. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).

                  The scientific methods can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits on an integrated circuits today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) and compare that to number of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.

               Even a honey-bee can maneuver many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand, scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such knowledge.

            The research effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing real software components.

I have made such simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is openly provided in my web-site http://real-software-components.com and in my ResearchGate account. We (i.e. http://pioneer-soft.com) built first and only GUI-platform in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved problems.

            I don’t have the resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific methods).

             To invent solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI, which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions. Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?

              Many software researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such inventions): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics

             Please kindly remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering BoK) can withstand even the most rigorous validation and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation. But how such truth/reality can prevail if every respected researcher tries to cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by refusing to see the evidence)?

             How can we emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? Mathematics is incapable of providing such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only by using scientific methods. No painter can paint XYZ (i.e. rea-CBD), if he has no clues how XYZ (or real-CBD) looks like. Today no software expert can provide accurate summary or realistic description for real CBD. Isn’t a scandal?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Research Proposal Computer Science (Software) Must be Considered as an Indepen...