Hello @Raju, it's not easy at all to expose wrong assumptions whether or not they are accidental or not.  But now we have open  review on RG.  So we can make a positive review or otherwise, of the papers we read.  And we can provide research feedback.  If we think that the data is honestly obtained, we can have good things to say.  If it's plagiarized from another scientist, we can comment on that too.  I hope my brief idea is helpful.  I think that RG serves a good purpose.

Some people may not accept their mistakes and change, but humble scientists. who realize the little we know, and the imperfection of our knowledge may accept their errors, perhaps?  Thanks.

To always apply a healthy dose of doubt especially when it concerns our own conjectures, hypotheses. Bearing in mind the Quine-Duhem thesis related to induction, wherewith to establish some degree of confirmation holism. Then in deducing from these conceptualizations try to abide by the logic of discovery by falsification.

With all that's been said on rigor, never let the wonder and curiosity that drew you to science and a quest for truth fade away-the pleasure of finding things out.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10260.The_Pleasure_of_Finding_Things_Out

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

For the theory, model, etc. to be accepted it has to have enough explanatory power and fit within the historical moment it is in (even though our profession relishes in abstraction and denying history,political background among other factors from which there is no escape). This power may be to harmonize competing theories or in some cases vanquish or replace theories. If put in this context theories are victims of the limitations of its time and current theories will have flaws as did older discarded theories. This does not mean that they are worthless (even old discarded theories), but that they served to explain a phenomenon at a certain point in time and guide our scientific development. This happens not just to scientific knowledge in society but at a personal level too. This is a natural development in areas where progress is measured linearly.

Thank You @Yeoh. I feel truth shines more when bright light is shed on it. So I put all the evidence openly as papers in RG and my web site http://real-software-components.com. A truth can prevail and shine more and more under more and more rigorous scrutiny, but can’t prevail, if every one thinks it is someone else’s obligation.

If the error is at the root of a scientific or engineering paradigm, the consequences are catastrophic.  For example, the error (i.e. tacit assumption ‘the Earth is static’) at the root of astronomy sidetracked scientific progress for several hundreds of years. All the research work of thousands of philosophers wasted.

For example, even great scientists and philosophers such as Newton or Rene Descartes could not have made any meaningful lasting contribution to geocentric paradigm, if they were born an hundred years earlier. Except exposing the error, it is impossible to make any lasting contribution to flawed paradigm that has been evolved from a flawed tacit assumption. The greatest contribution one can make for geocentric paradigm is destroying it.

I feel, exposing such error needs different kind of talent and attitude than what Newton had. Great philosophers like Galileo and Kepler put the scientific progress on right tracks. Newton certainly a great scientist and pushed the scientific progress to unprecedented levels.

Unfortunately tens of thousands of software researchers have been wasting their passionate effort on the geocentric paradigm of software engineering in general and CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) for past 3 to 4 decades. Without exposing the error, it is impossible to make any lasting contribution to flawed paradigm that has been evolved from a flawed tacit assumption.

Until the discovery of Newton, what explanation one can give for the falling of rocks from a mountain? I am sure they had a sound and convincing explanation based on tacit assumptions. For example, philosophers had sound and convincing explanations retrograde motions and epicycles that were supported by thousands of observations and concepts, which no one ever questioned (i.e. widely accepted and strongly supported).

The error (i.e. the tacit assumption ‘the Earth is static’) was made more than 1000 years ago and the error was buried under thousands of observations and concepts and invisible. No one can possible say or consciously aware that the whole paradoxical paradigm had been evolved by relying on postulation “the Earth is static”.

One can maintain any paradox by denying scientific principles … Galileo Goalie

            If you ask researchers of computer science and software engineering for the existing definitions and concepts for CBSD, they would provide seemingly sound and convincing explanations, which were supported by thousands of observations and concepts, which no one ever questioned (i.e. widely accepted and strongly supported).

            Software researchers can explain many definitions and concepts for so called software components and CBSD. But if you ask, why concepts for CBD (Component Based Design) for software contradict reality we know about the CBD of physical products, you would here many kinds of unjustified excuses.

            No one knows what are the postulation at the root of the CBSD that sidetracked research into a wrong path. Even I am not 100% sure, but I can summarize my based on my conversations with hundreds of researchers and engineers during past 15 years.

            The researchers invented few definitions for so called software components, without mentioning any justifications or documenting the basis for the definitions. The software engineering has been evolving by relying on the definitions for past 50 years. The first chapter of any book on CBSD/CBSE starts by introducing certain definitions and concepts, without providing any scientific or rational basis for the definitions and concepts (they just made out of thin air). If they are flawed, every thing (i.e. CBSE/CBSD paradigm) that has been evolving for past few decades by relying on them must be flawed.

            If one thinks software is amazingly advanced, software engineering could have been 10 to 20 times more powerful and advanced, if the error were exposed 30 years ago. May be we could be very close to cracking the mysteries of true artificial intelligence. I am sure, powerful software would be helping researchers crack many mysteries in diverse areas such as genetics, reliable climate models or renewable energy (or cold fusion).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Thank You @Lew. Thank you for pointing to “The pleasure of finding out”. But I could not open 2nd link. You are right, and I agree with your statement:

>>To always apply a healthy dose of doubt especially when it concerns our own conjectures, hypotheses.

            I have been doing this research for more than 15 years. I created real software components that can achieve real CBD for software.  I built a GUI API and tools, so that any one can create real-software-components that can achieve real CBD for GUI applications (e.g. any one can freely download the GUI-API at www.pioneer-soft.com). Today no other GUI-API in the world can create real-software-components because no one knows what real-software-components are and what real-CBD is. Any one can see the proof by experiencing it first hand. I invested lot of my time and money (e.g. hiring junior programmers to achieve real CBD) to make sure, I am absolutely right. I agree, there is lot of pleasure in finding out.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dr. Geigel,

            Exposing errors in tacit assumptions is a complex endeavor. No other discovery in the history of mankind faced more resistance and more rigorously validated than the discovery “the Sun is at the center (of planetary orbits)”.

 You said: >>--If put in this context theories are victims of the limitations of its time and current theories will have flaws as did older discarded theories. This does not mean that they are worthless (even old discarded theories), but that they served to explain a phenomenon at a certain point in time and guide our scientific development.  --

Raju,

While logic can be the best guide in filtering out flawed reasoning there is still the matter of the nature of propositions and the underlying axioms used. In the field of Mathematics it is relatively easy to restrain the nature of the propositions and axioms but when we move to physics, chemistry, and biology, the reasoning becomes more complex and more difficult to evade the prejudices of our time.

Having spent time with one of my philosophy professors which I still consider one of my best mentors taught me that: one must also be cautious on passing judgment on the theories of other time based on our current knowledge. Doing so imposes the prejudices of our time on that historical moment and may blind us to some of the realities of the moment which made the argument compelling. We must look at the arguments through the mirror of its time. This goes to the point of separating logical from historical and scientific arguments, they are very different in nature.

As a final thought to this post, I would separate the notion of logical truth from the notion of "the search for truth". While most scientist equate them, I would be cautious of doing so, they are different in nature and scope.

Regards

Dr. Geigel,

Failures teach more valuable lessons than successes, but only when we accept failure and analyze the reasons for the failures. If we don’t learn lessons we doomed to repeat it (at a huge cost to the mankind’s scientific progress).

Dr. Geigel, I am not passing the judgment on what happened 400 years ago. What I am saying is to analyze the reasons to expose the tacit assumptions to prevent the same thing in the 21st century, because it is repeated in my beloved field of computer science and software engineering.

Bringing in Gestalt shift and/or Khunien paradigm shift is one of the complex endeavors for scientific progress. Please kindly look at figures 1 and 4 in this web page: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

The figure-1 represents the perception of reality up until 500 years ago. For over 1000 of years countless observations and concepts created and documented that were consistent with each other and consistent with this perception of reality. The figure-4 represents our perception of reality today and every concept and observation documented, which are consistent with each other and consistent with this perception of reality. Each of the concepts are incommensurable across the paradigms.

Now let me illustrate, what pains me most: If brilliant scientists and philosophers like Newton and Rene Descartes were to born 100 years earlier, all their brilliant work would not have contributed to the advancement of mankind’s scientific knowledge. On the other hand, if the were to born 100 years later (after some one else discovering universal gravity, 3-laws of motion and invention of calculus to provide mathematical proof), still they could have made substantial lasting contributions (because they are brilliant and scientific progress was not in a wrong path).

What is paining me most: I met, read works of and interacted with many brilliant researchers in computer science and software engineering. Many of them are amazingly brilliant. But it is painful to see that they have been wasting their passionate hard work on geocentric paradigm of software engineering for 3 to 4 decades.

I am not that smart, but discovered the error by accident and have been passionately doing researching for about 15 years to understand the reality and to make sure I am not wrong. Please keep in mind, experts are the people who know every thing about the state of the art. So they are well equipped to push the state of the art in to new frontiers (only if it possible). Because of their years of expertise and knowledge about the state of the art, they are least equipped to discover many decades old tacit assumption, which are buried deep under thousands of concepts and observation documented in hundreds of text books thousands of research papers.

This kind of error can be discovered not by plan but only by accident (by someone who is on the periphery). I am sure, many other engineers might have accidentally stumbled on to real software components, but they could not quit what they were doing to investigate the truth for over a decade. I know at least two, who accidentally stumbled on to real software components. I never met one of them, but inferred form his post in a discussion group, that he is taking about   real-software-components. I met other one, who briefly explained a new kind of components that increased productivity by 10 folds. We chatted only for few minutes and he refused to see evidence and not interested to continue discussion.

I feel, the difference between them and me are: It induced irresistible curiosity and I could quite my job to focus on this research. Also there is chance of making money, because I already invented first GUI API in the world that can help create real software components. I felt, it is worth the risk.

Dr. Geigel, how would you feel, if you have been doing research on advancing geocentric paradigm of your field for 30 years and you learned just before retirement the Truth?

If the error were exposed 30 years ago, most of the brilliant minds made huge contributions to advance computer science and software engineering would be 10 to 30 times more powerful by now. I can’t do anything for past 30 years, but I can try to avoid repeating this for next 30 years. I wish to stop wasting research efforts of brilliant minds on the geocentric paradigm of software engineering.

Dr. Geigel, I am not disagreeing with you. You may be saying glass is 10 to 15% full and I am worried about 85 to 90% glass is empty. Of course, brilliant minds might make contributions (even when scientific progress in wrong path), but they could make 5 to 10 times more valuable contributions, when the scientific progress in right path.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri