Dear Friends,

           The researchers of software committed a monumental mistake (no other scientific or engineering discipline committed similar mistake during past 500 years). The researchers of basic sciences committed this kind of mistake more than 2000 years ago by believing that “the Earth is static” is a self-evident fact (so they felt it needs neither proof nor documenting the belief as assumption). Documenting any assumption keeps the assumption on the radar of researchers, so that (i) the assumption must be validated, if and when possible, and (ii) researchers clearly know that it is not yet a fact. The researchers must be clearly informed that they are taking risk by relying on an unproven assumption and their efforts would be wasted, if the assumption is flawed.

           The researchers relied on the flawed belief (i.e. the Earth is static) for advancing mankind’s knowledge for about 1600 years, which resulted in a complex geocentric paradox. The basic sciences ended up in a greatest scientific crisis. Exposing the flawed belief (by enduring huge pain and suffering) resulted in the greatest scientific revolution known to mankind. During the revolution researchers learned invaluable lessons (due to the huge pain and suffering), particularly: It is a huge mistake to rely on undocumented or unproven beliefs (e.g. by concluding such beliefs or assumptions are self-evident facts).

         To avoid such huge mistakes (i.e. treating unproven beliefs as self-evident facts) scientific processes and principles were formulated and formalized during the scientific revolution in the 17th century (e.g. by great 17th century philosophers including Galileo and Descartes to name a couple). Those formalized scientific processes and principles have been contiguously improved and perfected ever since. Today scientific processes and principles are widely used, highly mature and proven methods or tools for acquiring knowledge in the scientific domains.

             Scientists must never forget Descartes famous quote “I think, therefore I am”. This shows his intent – To prevent such mistake (i.e. relying on any belief, even if it is considered as a self-evident fact) at any cost. Nothing can be a fact, until it is proven by using a documented proof. Dr. Popper’s view: A fact in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified. Hence the proof and evidence for any fact must be documented, so that it can be falsified. Proof for any fact must be falsifiable, which doesn’t mean the proof is flawed, but the proof (and supporting evidence) can be falsified, if there is a flaw (i.e. by finding the flaw by any one at any time in the future). Any fact can no longer be a fact, as soon as its proof is falsified by demonstrating a flaw.

           Please keep in mind that: It is a blatant violation of basic scientific rules (i.e. principles and processes) to rely on unproven and undocumented beliefs (e.g. by concluding that the belief is self-evident fact). In real science, there are no self-evident facts. Nothing can be a fact, until the fact is proven by using documented proof supported by irrefutable evidence. The proof must be documented, so that it could be falsified by anyone (any time in the future, if there is a flaw), if and when possibly by finding new contradictory evidence or anomalies. Any such fact can no longer be a fact, as soon as its proof is falsified.

          Software researchers inadvertently violated the first cardinal rule of scientific process nearly 50 years ago by relying on undocumented untested beliefs. Today the software researchers are justifying the huge violation by using baseless excuses or even evasive tactics. If I try hard and persistent to expose the huge violation many resorting to humiliating snub and insults. Is trying hard to expose hidden unproven beliefs at the root of software engineering a heresy?

          Is it a valid defense to imply: You are a fool/crazy, because researchers of scientific or engineering discipline would never commit such a foolish mistake in the 20th century? Why many researchers are resorting to humiliating snubs or personal attacks, instead of proving that the discipline is not rooted in flawed beliefs. For example, if they are not beliefs (but are proven facts), the experts can just mention where I can find documented proof for the proven facts.

            Therefore relying on undocumented and unproven belief (by concluding the beliefs are self-evident facts about 50 years ago) was a monumental mistake. The scientific rules were particularly formulated to avoid such huge mistake. Unfortunately many experts denying the fact that the software engineering is rooted in such beliefs. Unfortunately software researchers are refusing to see clear evidence that exposes flawed beliefs at the root of software engineering.

          Is it a valid defense: Stating that it is impossible for any 20th century scientific or engineering discipline to be rooted in such flawed beliefs (i.e. implying one must be a fool or crazy to say researchers in 20th century committed such a foolish mistake)? Instated of countering facts and reasoning by using facts and reasoning, many experts are resorting to snubbing or insults.

           Isn’t basic duty of software researchers to fix the causes to rescue software engineering and computer science from software crisis? I feel software researchers are obligated to ascertain that there are no such beliefs in the knowledge foundation of software engineering. Tens of thousands of researchers have been wasting their valuable efforts on geocentric paradox of computer science. The universities around the world have been indoctrinating each year hundreds of thousands of young researchers, scientists or engineers into the geocentric paradox of computer science (to endure the software crisis).

      This kind of monumental waste must be stopped at any cost. The basic scientific rules and processes are formulated particularly to prevent a huge mistake – Relying of undocumented and unproven beliefs at any cost. Software researchers committed such monumental mistake by ignoring basic scientific rules and continue to justify such blatant violation of basic scientific rules. How to expose hidden untested flawed beliefs (treated as facts) at the root of modern scientific or engineering discipline?

Best Regards,

Raju