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 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 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 of knowledge for dominant paradigm) supplied by their flawed education and many years (or decades) of work and experience confined to the conceptual boxes (i.e. dominant 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. No one in the world can prove that this statement is wrong: Software researchers have been committing all three mistakes described by Dr. Kuhn’s famous book.
Researchers violently oppose any thing that oppose their sacred received beliefs such as a discovery of any novel fact that is outside of the conceptual boxes (i.e. dominant paradigm), for example, by resorting to hostile attacks to suppress novelties that are often obvious facts such as parts that are not conducive to be assembled can’t be components. That is, parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled 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 is reusable). Today, no known kind of software components are designed and/or intended to be assembled by any stretch of imagination.
The dominant geocentric paradigm of 16th century was rooted in 2300-year-old received belief “the Earth is static at the centre”. In other words, the researcher 2300 years ago believed that the Earth is static at the centre. The research community accumulated huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for next 1800 years until 16th century by relying on this flawed received belief, where the BoK fundamentally altered their perception of reality. Their research was therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the huge BoK (i.e. conceptual boxes for dominant paradigm)". The researchers treated the received beliefs as sacred and violently oppose any thing that is perceived to be contradicting the sacred beliefs by instigating religious institutions to prosecute anyone questioning the untested or unproven sacred beliefs that resulted in killing or imprisoning him for heresy.
Likewise, the dominant software engineering paradigm exists today is rooted in 50 to 60 years old flawed untested or unproven received beliefs. The research community accumulated huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) for past 50 years by relying on the 50 to 60 year old untested or unproven flawed received belief, where the BoK fundamentally altered their perception of reality. Unfortunately, even in the 21st century that research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by the huge BoK (i.e. dominant paradigm)". The researchers vehemently opposing any thing that contradicts their sacred received beliefs, for example, resorting to hostile personal attacks to suppress novelties that are often obvious facts given below:
The reality of CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of a product can be briefly summarized as follows: Implementing large portion of features and functionality of the product in a set of special kind parts, where the parts are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in). The special kind of parts are known (i.e. referred to or named) as components and the product is built by assembling (or plugging-in) the components. A part that is not conducive to be assembled is not a component.
For example, computers or cell-phones are built by assembling many components such as CPU, RAM, Hard Drive, Screen, Key Board or Power Supply, where each component implements a specific features or functionality, which are a subset of the superset of all the features or functionality necessary for overall functioning of the product. These components collaborate and/or communicate with each other for providing the overall features and functionality of the product. Likewise, automobiles are built by assembling components such as engine, battery, gear-box, steering system, alternator and wheels etc.
I humbly request software researchers to introspect, for example, before resorting insults or personal attacks for defending the fiction and lies in the existing software engineering paradigm, which in effect suppressing novel facts that are obvious to laymen, such as: The obvious reality (in the context of countless products such as cars, computers, cell-phones, airplanes, machines or factory machinery) is: A very special kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) is named (i.e. referred to or known as) components. No other kind of part that is not designed and/or conducive to be assembled is called component.
Saying the truth “the Sun is at the centre” offended the common sense and enraged many researchers in 16th century. Unfortunately, many software researchers in the 21st century are reacting no differently than the researchers in the 16th century. Many software researchers feel offended or even enraged by simple facts (that are considered obvious by non-software experts or engineers) such as: “It is error to define parts that are not designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) are components”; and “It is error to define CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is using any other kind of parts that are not designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in)”.
We must accept the inevitable: The initial or first reaction for such disruptive novel discoveries or inventions is always negative. Almost every philosopher of science agrees that the initial or first reaction for such disruptive novel discoveries or inventions would be negative or hostile. Hence, it is wrong to make decision based on the initial reaction of the software experts for such novel disruptive proposal.
I learned hard way that it is impossible to convince any software expert either in an hour of presentation, or by sending few emails. I am not saying that it is impossible to convince software experts, but only saying that it is impossible to convince software experts either in 1 or 2 hours presentation or by sending emails (under this condition of intense resistance due to negative or bad first impression).
I can convince any team of software experts within couple of days, if they are willing to investigate all the evidence (preferably in the presence of neutral observers), where my rational reasoning backed by evidence can answer each of their questions or concerns for overcoming deeply entrenched prejudice and preconceived notions of the exiting dominant software engineering paradigm (that can be referred to as the geocentric paradigm of the software engineering).
After begging for a decade for giving me an opportunity for presenting proof, I feel it is foolish to expect positive reaction from any software expert or researcher. It may be foolish even to expect muted sceptical reaction, such as: I am sure you are wrong but since you are begging I am open to look at (i) evidence to determine if it can prove your contentions and (ii) counter evidence that can prove received beliefs that are foundation for exiting software engineering paradigm is flawed. The received beliefs include: CBD/CBE is composing any kind of reusable software parts that are either form 3rd party vendors or designed to be reusable. Today no known kind of so called software components is designed and/or conducive to be assembled.
The dominant geocentric paradigm of 16th century evolved for 1800 years and accumulated huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying of unproven flawed received belief (e.g. the Earth is at the centre). Likewise, existing software paradigm has been evolving for 50 years and accumulated 20 to 30 times more BoK (than the 16th century BoK that supported then dominant geocentric paradigm) by relying on flawed received beliefs (e.g. reusable parts are components and CBD/CBE is using such so called components). So, any novel proposal that appear to be undermining flawed received beliefs (that are at the very foundation of existing dominant paradigm) would face fierce hostile resistance (or reaction) due to intense negative first impression (e.g. by offending common sense or enraging experts). If no one is willing to look at counter evidence, how any flawed dominant paradigm can be subverted?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Research Proposal The Objective Reality of CBD/CBE & Facts about the Components
Dear Dr. Verge,
It is not good manners to spam questions or threads created other researchers. I told you in previous thread that decent people don’t do that. I also said, I ask questions in the area I do research, such as software engineering, philosophy or science, scientific method and subverting dominant paradigm.
People do research on nature and characteristics of animals ask questions on animals. People do research on nature and characteristics of bacteria ask questions on bacteria. It is not necessary that they must ask questions in diverse fields such as economics, literature or influence of religions on politics.
Tell me, if there is any policy that I can’t ask questions in the areas I do research? For ignorant people, all Chinese look alike. Many Chinese told me, many Indians look alike. In my childhood 40 years ago, I had hard time distinguishing between the characters in American movies, because most of them look alike.
What are your qualifications in software, theoretical computer science, nature of knowledge, philosophy of science and scientific method? Due to your ignorance about software, computer science, scientific method and philosophy of science, you are not able to distinguish profound differences between the questions. I responded to you once: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_nature_such_as_essential_properties_of_physical_things_subject_to_ideological_choices_by_ignoring_objective_facts_and_reality
Tell me, why do you thing they are same questions? Not all questions in related to software are same questions. Software engineering and computer science is vast area. Until you learn civilized behavior, please stop spamming my threads. No one asked you to look at my account or answer my questions. Due to your incompetence and ignorance in this area you are wasting my time. I have right to present facts that are backed by evidence.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Verge,
You said: please be aware that this "question" is one among many similar ones from the same author, who seems prone to open a new question when plenty of people disagree with him on the previous one
It shows your ignorance and incompetence. Research is thinking outside of the box and questioning the conventional wisdom. These are the most sought after traits of good researchers. Ignorant people like you try to suppress decent and freedom of thought or expression.
I am planning to file a suit against such so called experts, who are causing irreparable damage to the efforts of many brilliant students as explained in the attached PDF.
The whole of software engineering paradigm is rooted in 50 to 60 years old lies, such as, software parts that are designed to be reusable are components, even if such reusable parts are not conducive to be assembled by any stretch of imagination.
This is in clear contradiction to the facts and reality: Specific kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) are named or referred to as components, even if the components are custom designed to fit perfectly and perform optimally in just one product (so can’t be reused in any other kind of product).
The whole software industry disagrees with me on this discovery. But no one is giving any proof to back their lies. No one is challenging my US patents for real components that are designed to be plugged-in, while insisting that it is impossible to invent such real software components.
What is your point? Should I keep quite, if other researchers disagree? If you are competent, prove me wrong. If you are competent, invalidate my US patents by filing compliant with USPTO: 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177.
Please stop lying. Please go and read those threads. For example, Dr. Peter and myself disagreed on things such as “using scientific method” for acquiring necessary and accurate knowledge for computer science. Another suggestion he made was, use other term such as “wudget” for parts that are designed to be assembled”, because the term components are already used to refer to other kind of parts. I explained to him that I already tried few times and failed, it is foolish to try again.
Only fools try to suppress descent and ideological diversity by such tactics. The fact is: Software engineering not yet invented real components (i.e. parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled). Any one can prove me wrong by showing an application built by such real components anywhere else in the world.
Science and engineering requires evidence, not empty rhetoric. Many software experts disagreed with this, but so far no one could show counter evidence. So many of them have a decency to agree with me. You want me to blindly follow the lie without questing it? I am not a cult to blindly follow baseless myths and lies.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You said: You do have a question (yes, we know that all SE dogma is a fair amount of rubbish), but not any kind of answer as far as I can determine from all the conversations to date.
Why “SE dogma is a fair amount of rubbish”? Keep in mind that the “geocentric dogma” was fair amount of rubbish filled with inexplicable epicycles. But the heliocentric dogma was not filled with such rubbish. Why? The answer was, the former was rooted in flawed untested belief, later was rooted in proven fact.
Dr. Peter, no one liked the right answer “the Sun is at the center”, so no one listened during 16th century. I have been giving right answer all along, but you are not listening: CBD/CBE of a product is implementing large portion of features and functionality of the product in a set of particular kind of parts that must be designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in).
Let me quote Shakespeare to illustrate the point: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Don’t we need to know how to find a Rose and why we need Rose and why it is useful or how it must be used to extract the value? In my mother tongue, it is called "Gulabi", but each of us know how to use it.
I don’t mind calling “the particular kind of parts that must be designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in)” Wudgets, if it is possible to explain for everyone to extract value, how Wudgets can be identified, why they are useful and how they can be used to extract the value (by using the well known, understood and well documented for 200 years objective reality of physical components and CBD of physical products as reference).
Where do you get 20% figure. I have interacted with thousands of researchers and experts, but not yet found even 0.1%. Neither of us are experts on subverting a dominant paradigm. I am trying to understand the structure and characteristics of dominant paradigm that can be subverted. Please see attached PDF. I am only beginning to realize the complexity of subverting a dominant paradigm. Kindly see next message and attached PDF.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
A paradigm sift from dominant paradigm to a new paradigm is nearly as hard as converting a high priest from his beloved religion to a new religion having no followers and no one ever heard. For example, most Christian pastors know about Buddhism and Buddhist priests know about Christianity. Many pastors or priests have healthy respect for other great religions. But subverting a dominant paradigm by making him accept new paradigm no one ever heard is like asking him to convert to a new unknown or unheard of religion started by you.
Few people might pretend to listen (even though uncomfortable), if one advocating such conversion is highly respected person such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Advocating new paradigm by unknown person like me from India, China or Africa is perceived as quackery. How to overcome such perception of quackery?
The reality in the context of product design is: each product is created by primarily two kinds of parts (i) parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled, which are popularly known or referred to as components (a part that is not conducive to be assembled is not referred to as a component), and (ii) other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable parts such as metals, steel, cement, alloys, plastic, wood, rubber or specialized material such as silicon-wafers (e.g. to make computer chips) or lead-acid to make batteries etc.
Unfortunately, software researchers have been referring to the second kind of parts as components for past 50 years. So, in effect we (i.e. software community and experts) are fooling ourselves and rest of the world that we already have components and achieved CBD. Today, no known kind of so called software components are conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) by any stretch of imagination.
P.S: Each of the products is built by assembling components, where each of the basic components is built by using other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable parts. Today each software product is directly built by using other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable parts (i.e. without using particular kind of parts known as components that can be assembled).
Let me quote Shakespeare to illustrate your argument: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". You are asking me to pick another name like Wudget for “the parts that can be assembled”. You think that names don’t matter. But I tried that and it didn’t work, because a gestalt shift is not possible by simultaneously seeing few parts of one paradigm and other parts of another paradigm – It is a proven and widely accepted fact.
But, let me admit that our debate is helping me gain deeper insights by pushing me into directions that I am not thought of before. For example, I got ideas (that needs more exploration) for more new patents for components/CBD. Let me know what you think about the attached PDF.
It is valuable to know, what kind of dominant paradigms can be subverted and how each of them can be found. Can you name other dominant paradigms (of the size geocentric paradigm measured by its size of BoK and period it evolved) that were subverted? I am searching for other such dominant paradigms that were subverted to gain more insights for finding dominant paradigms that can be and must be subverted.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Thank you peter for making me explores things deeper for gaining insights. Struggling to respond to your messages making things clear to me. Please see the above 2 responses. The rubbish you mentioned doesn’t exist for designing, engineering and building (or development) of any other kind of product. Only exception is software products. The difference is software products don’t use “particular kind of parts that can be literally assembled (that are widely known as components)”.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I don’t need to provide any proof. No one asked proof for the untested and unproven lie “the Earth is at the center”. No fact in the history of science was challenged and tested more rigorously than the fact “the Sun is at the center”.
This led to the discovery of one of the fundamental forces of the nature the Universal Gravity and many other such laws of nature. These laws of very foundation to modern world we experience every day. If that was a lie, we must be living in a Matrix (an illusion created by a super deceiver). We have to start all over from “I think, there for I am”. I hope both of us exist and the world we experience is real :-)
In case of software, no one questioned the 50 to 60 years old flawed assumptions that led to the flawed definitions for components. Now the assumptions are treated as sacred self-evident fact for eternity. The simple truth (no part can be a components, if it is not conducive to be assembled) is fiercely challenged and facing huge hostile opposition. Please see attached PDF.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Any paradigm that treats a fact (e.g. “the sun is at the center” or “no part can be a component, if it is not conducive to be assembled”) can be and must be subverted. Please read the nature or structure of the paradigms that can be and must be subverted.
Dr. Peter, you proved nothing. I have been begging for 10 years to look at the evidence, but you and every one else refusing to look at the evidence. Why any one would believe you, where you said:
One of your statements: Mercury apparently disappears behind the Sun at perfectly regular intervals entirely unaffected by our seasons rather suggests that Mercury is an independent orbit round the Sun.
Researchers insisted that it was quackery, when Galileo and others (e.g. Giordano Bruno) try to show such evidence. When researchers refuse to look at the evidence, nothing can be proved. The problem is not the proof, but refusing to look at the proof for any thing that contradicts their sacred beliefs.
Dr. Peter, minor irregularities (i.e. perturbations) in the orbit of the Uranus lead to the sensational discovery of Neptune and dramatic proof for Universal gravity. Every thing you mentioned are only circumstantial evidences,. They can prove nothing, even if researchers willing to spend many years to verify your claims such as: I could measure that the angle to the position in the sky of proxima centauri has a tiny but measurable sinosoidal component with period one year.
It is very simple and nice to be defending a dominant paradigm ;-). I can provide conclusive convincing evidence within 2 days. But no one is willing to look at the evidence. You are asking me to observe many years to measure tine stellar parallax, when no one is willing to look at Galileo’s Moons, which requires just few hours? It is very nice to be difficult playing devil’s advocate :-).
You said:
So you can't even prove that the Earth goes round the Sun? What hope have you got!
I have 100s of such proofs. They are useless, if no one is willing to look at the proof. What can you do, if I say there is no stellar parallax? It is your illusion. I have been asking for 10 years to show software parts that can be assembled, as illustrated in this example: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html. Many people insisted that every software application is built by using such pluggable components, but no one ever showed even single such GUI component.
I never said this: As to "nobody every proved" the Sun went round the Earth in the first place,
You can't twist my statement to suite your argument. I said that it is a lie: The Earth is static at the center. If you only compare 2 planets, we can easily confuse which one is moving. We can observe this in trains. If two trains in a station and you are in one of the trains. If you notice one of the trains is moving, it is vary hard to know which train is moving until you see static object other side of your train. I experienced this hundreds of times in trains, airplanes or even cars (when stopped next to a large Bus)
Many researchers in 16th century insisted there was no stellar parallax to prove that the Earth is not moving. Another argument was, if the earth is moving how could the Moon fallow. Scientific method is not confirmation but it is about disconfirmation (or disproving things such as accepted self-evident facts). I am not trying to prove the heliocentric paradigm of software but disproving the geocentric model of the software engineering rooted in the lies “reusable parts are components”. To expose the flawed beliefs, I am proposing my own theory that I am sure can withstand rigorous scrutiny.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I have very little hope that I can expose the lies at the root of existing dominant paradigm. Only sure way is dragging few respected research organizations to court for ruining valuable efforts of young researchers in pursuit of geocentric paradigm in addition to trillions of dollars costs to the world economy due to the infamous software crisis.
Dr. Peter, I am struggling to understand the reality by understanding the relationship between the components and other kind of parts. I don’t want to convince anyone. But I like to know your intellectual insights about what you think about the attached PDF.
We can disagree as most gentlemen do. But they are only interested in the Truth and Reality. I will not force you to agree with me. You can’t force me to agree with you. I like to know other perspectives to evolve my understanding closer to the Truth. It is an iterative process and shaped by exploring alternative perspectives. We are both on the same side. We both are interested in the Truth.
Many people see components are replacement for other kind of parts, for example, like aluminium can be used to make panels for cars instead of steel. Likewise, plastic can be used to make certain components for pens instead of metals. But what other kind of part is replaced by using the component abstraction? For example, using plastic instead of metals reduce the use of metals in the product. Component abstraction don’t reduce any material.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
The point is you can’t prove 2+2 =4, if experts refuse to look at the evidence. I asked many times to look at the evidence such as http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html and you refused every time. I requested countless times, show me even a single large pluggable GUI-component of size City_ATC anywhere in the world or software mother board for plugging in such components such as: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/Sample_SoA_CASE_tool.html
You are getting so irritated, when I say I am going to look at the evidence because every researcher insisted there was no stellar paradox. You didn’t give me a reason, why I should spend a year to measure tiny stellar parallax? Even if I can measure the tiny shift, it could be measurement error. You insisted thousands times that my inventions are only limited to GUI components. When show is on other foot, you get irritated for not agreeing with you.
Let’s not get into silly juvenile arguments. Help me here: To gain deeper insights and wisdom, I am trying to gain multi dimensional picture of the reality about components a CBD/CBE, by investigating every possible perspective. One of the perspectives is abstraction of components. One thing can be seen in many perspectives, where each perspective paints a new picture. One must assimilate all these pictures to gain multi dimensional knowledge, wisdom and insights.
Dr. Peter, I don’t care even the Earth is flat. But I care, if parts that are not assemble (or not conducive to be assembled by any starch of imagination) are components. We primarily use two kinds of parts for building products (i) parts that can be assembled, and (ii) other kind of parts such as ingredient and/or reusable etc.
Software engineering not yet invented parts that can be assembled. Hence there is a huge gap in the software engineering which is manifested as infamous software crisis. If you have choice to join me in this effort and have a satisfaction to be a part of software engineering revolution.
I never said my perspective or perception is right. That is the reason I want to know other perspectives to paint clearer picture that is closer and closer to the reality. We not only can contribute this knowledge to the world but also gain insights for making useful inventions that has potential to make money by patenting the inventions. I am also an entrepreneur, so I want to make money, if I make valuable contributions to society.
Isn't communistic hypocrisy to insist that, it is wrong to file software patents for making money. The same people complain that they are not paid enough for the lousy work they are doing in the Universities or in the Industry. Why can’t they do their work for free, before demanding others to give away their life time effort free?
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I am not trying to argue. I am only interested in presenting my perspective backed by evidence (or facts) and want to here perspectives of others backed by evidence or facts. My objective is painting my mental picture or perception of reality closer and closer to the objective reality (or Truth).
Objective of every researcher is discovering the Truth. In that sense, we are all on the same side. A good scientific debate requires not argument but exchange of ideas backed by evidence. When you present your perspective, I am obligated to use my intellect and reasoning to accept and absorb things I agree. I don’t agree with certain thing, only if I can find valid reasons backed by counter evidence. In both cases, I likely gain better insights into the reality.
It looks like you and Vergne expect me accept you opinions or suggestions unconditionally and blindly by forgoing my ability to reason and intellect. Sorry, I am not a sheep.
Dr. Vergne said in first reply to this thread: By the way, for interested people, please be aware that this "question" is one among many similar ones from the same author, who seems prone to open a new question when plenty of people disagree with him on the previous one, even after providing plenty of constructive feedback. One can check the contributions of the author for confirmation. So if you participate to this discussion, be aware that you may spend this time for nothing.
What a moron. He has Zero intellect or reasoning and insists that I must accept his opinion blindly as if they are sacred tenets from demigod. He made no useful contribution except showcasing his ignorance and incompetence.
Dr. Peter, my goal never is winning an argument. The ultimate winner is the one, who makes a discovery that is closest to the Truth. I have very little tolerant for ignorant people like Dr. Vergne, who resort to such insults to feel superior.
But I insult competent people like you (when you try to insult me :-), because if it hurts your ego, so you try very hard to prove me wrong and end up discovering the Truth. Subverting a dominant paradigm requires confronting or even humiliating competent people with evidence openly, to enrage them to find real evidence to prove me wrong.
Their efforts help them discover Truth. If I am right (that I have no doubt), they end up agreeing with me. This is deliberate strategy. This requires investment of US$3.2 million to openly confront research community. This is the most effective way to subvert dominant paradigm, if it is flawed.
P.S: Why are you trying to solve 16th century problem using 21st century knowledge. You are competent, try to solve this 21st century problem to the experts having 20th century knowledge :-)
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I expected more intelligent statement than this “then you lose”. In such perspective Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were all losers (while they were alive). In my view, they have final lough. Spoiled brats seek instant gratification, even at the expense of Truth and moral obligations.
Real researchers do research out of intellectual curiosity to discover the Truth. I am looking for real researchers. I am not yet successful and loosing hope that I can find such real researchers in software. Winning arguments is distant second – It is nice to be recognized but not essential. In my case, making money is more useful winning arguments :-(. Give me US$100 million and I am more than happy to lose all the arguments :-).
In case of subverting dominant paradigm, readers don’t even read first sentence if that contradicts their sacred myth such as “the Earth is static”. Only way you can make them read the second sentence is by dragging them to court to substantiate their baseless sacred myth.
Dr. Peter, the proof you mentioned was incomplete. Discovery of Neptune due to the miner wobbling of Uranus confirmed the Universal gravity. The Newton’s mathematical proof provided a complete and conclusive proof for the Heliocentric model. I my view, the falsifiable proof can never be falsified.
Unsubstantiated tiny observations can never be conclusive proof. They never disappear in regular intervals due to elliptical orbits. You would never win, if you give such proof to 16th century researchers. The 21st century researchers don’t need any proof. You don’t need to preach to already converted.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You are wrong. They never argued. They just presented the facts. In fact, Copernicus not even present his discovery until after his death: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology
Please read the history. Only person, who tried to argue by presenting evidence was Galileo – You know what happened to him. He was threatened to be executed if don’t recant. Giordano Bruno was executed.
In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
Dr. Peter, there is little thing called evidence and reality. You can’t ignore the reality in scientific research. In mathematic, you can ignore reality by using axioms. In science, the axioms must be rooted in reality, but not in vacuum. I was great engineer, but now I am scientist, who rely on reality not baseless mathematical axioms as mathematicians.
Mathematicians are not scientists, as long as they ignore the reality and evidence. You can’t provide mathematical argument for scientific problems such as – The essential nature and characteristics of physical beings such the components, bacteria, viruses, plants or animals etc.
P.S: Some one reading this argument 20 years after exposing this error at the root of software engineering feel that I provided great argument. You can’t see effectiveness of 16th century argument with 21st century knowledge. You need to see in right context. Any statement that directly or indirectly suggest “the Sun is at the center” insulted conventional wisdom and engaged 16th century research community.
Dr. Peter, you admit or not, there is a subconscious racism or at least elitism. They don’t want an unknown person from India to question their sacred beliefs. You know what I mean by this. For example, Dr. Verge clearly exhibits this attitude. He feels, an inferior colored person like me from India must not argue with white researchers from west like him.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dr. Peter,
How can you initiate any discussion, when researchers feel offended and refuse to contemplate even remote possibility that the Earth may be moving? How can you reason with fanatics so sure of themselves, while still being unsure and struggling to understand vast uncharted area of heliocentric model. For example, Kepler’s 3 laws are extremely close to the reality but unsure of reasons why the planets are traveling in elliptical paths. Newton able to provide reasoning and mathematical proof.
Today’s situation is not much different. Researchers are not willing to even contemplate the possibility of their understanding of reality is rooted in flawed beliefs. What evidence is needed to prove known facts: The products are created primarily by using two kinds of parts (i) ingredient parts such as steel, plastic, metals, alloys, rubber or specialized material such as silicon, metal-oxide (to make computer chips), lead-acid or nickel-cadmium (to make batteries) etc,; and (2) parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled and disassembled.
The first kind of parts are used in making the second kind of parts. In the context of designing or manufacturing of any product, the second kind of parts are widely known and referred to as components. A part that can’t be assembled is not a component. I am sure all these facts are accurate (very close to reality) but there is room for improvement, so I can’t be fanatic like others to be so sure.
Software engineers not yet invented very useful kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled and disassembled (widely known or referred to as components). But fooling themselves and rest of the world that they have been using components, by defining other kind of parts as components.
P.S: You must agree that I am getting better at arguing. I must thank you for pushing me to get better at my understanding of reality. You could help me more, if you present your perspective about the components/CBD
Don’t forget Galileo’s famous murmur “And Yet it moves”. It takes no time to discover the truth, once it is accepted that the belief at the root of geocentric paradigm is flawed. Galileo disagreed with Kepler on elliptical orbital path. After all there were 9 plants. One has one-in-9 chances to be right. Most probable choice is the Sun, after the Earth.
Likewise, it would take no time to discover components (i.e. parts that are conducive to be assembled), when the error in the definitions for components are accepted. I am sure brilliant people can discover far better descriptions than I proposed for real components. It is not a theory but a fact: Parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled are essential for CBD/CBE. The Earth is moving is a fact not a theory.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
How can I propose to software community about very useful kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled (that are widely known and referred to as components in the context of designing and building countless product we use every day)?
In the context of designing and building countless product (e.g. cars, computers, airplanes, TVs, machines of machinery for factory) we use every day, no other kind of part (i.e. if it is not conducive to be assembled) is not a component.
It takes no time to invent such kind parts (i.e. parts that are conducive to be assembled) for designing and building software components, once the error in existing definitions for components is accepted. One can’t invent, if no attempt is made. They are fooling themselves due to the error, which is preventing researchers from even trying to invent real components. Such very useful kind of parts (widely known as components) doesn’t exist today for software components.
Dr. Peter, I am not very smart and don't want to pretend to be smart. But destiny choose me to expose this error. I am trying my best to expose the error. Life is full of accidents and you deal with them as best as you can.
Dr. Peter, in my humble opinion, fools argue, while gentlemen engage in good faith debate for exchanging ideas to gain more insights by understanding other’s perspective. Any gentleman must always support his perspective by evidence.
Many experts in 16th century felt insulted when anyone says the truth “the Sun is at the center”. They considered it personal attack or questioning his intelligence. Likewise, when I present a fact, even in 21st century many software experts told me that I am insulted his intelligence and resorted to personal attacks.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You said: Except they're not. You meant "in the automobile industry". In the software industry, by contrast, those are known as "modules", I think, something like library functions and object class libraries.
It is not just in the context automobile industry, but in the context of designing, engineering and building countless products we use everyday such as computers, cell-phones, TVs machines and machinery for factory. The only exception to this rule is software products.
If any thing such as clue or belief diverts our research efforts into a wrong path, then the clue or belief is an error. Such error must be exposed to put our efforts on the right path. Such errors would have evil effects: Existing dominant paradigm for software is result of investing research efforts in a wrong path.
If you look at this perspective, the flawed use of the term “components” to include parts that can’t be assembled successfully prevented us for many decades from inventing very useful kind of parts that are conducive to be assembled. It takes no time (i.e. just few weeks) to invent parts that can be assembled, if researchers want to gain necessary knowledge for making such inventions.
Dr. Peter, I mentioned many times before “purity of knowledge and wisdom”. Impurities in out knowledge would have evil effects. Terminology is irreverent, if our knowledge is pure. But unfortunately the terminology is essential to gain pure knowledge. I think and reason in mother tongue Telugu and you think and reason in English (if it is your mother tongue).
Your understanding and purity of your knowledge depends on meaning you attribute to each term in a given context. For example, lawyers and courts spend days to understand the indented meaning of legislators for certain terms. The purity of our knowledge depends on what each term represents in our mental model or perception of the reality.
If our mental model or perception of reality is in clear contradiction to the objective reality, we must fix the error in terminology to redraw of our perception of reality to be closer to the objective reality. In 16th century, the inexplicable epicycle and retrograde motions were accepted as the very nature of the plants. Today, inexplicable epicycle and retrograde motions (i.e. infamous software crisis) are considered very nature of designing software products.
I am sure you agree, our knowledge and wisdom must be close to the objective reality by painting a perception close to the objective reality. How can we re-paint our perception of reality without fixing the errors that lead to the altered perception of reality?
The complex task is exposing the flawed beliefs at the very root and foundation of a dominant paradigm. It is trivial task to discover the Truth, once the error is realized and widely accepted.
Researchers only start exploring alternative paths, only after realizing (and become widely accepted) the error diverted them into a wrong path (which is resulted in existing dominate paradigm).
How many possible paths were there to explore, once they realized that the Earth is not static at the center? Exposing the error requires proposing a path that is most likely be the right path. That was what Copernicus did.
It must not take more than few weeks to discover real-software components for real CBD/CBD once researchers start exploring other paths. So my objectives are to expose the flaw at the root of existing dominate paradigm by proposing the right path based in reality and facts.
Our mental model or perception is Heliocentric model painted by Kepler and reasoned by Newton, where the reasoning was proven by the discovery of Neptune due to then inexplicable perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.
It is irrelevant, if the planet at the center is called Sun, Surya or Bhanu. We must accept the error that the planet we are living on is not static at the center. Likewise, we must realize the error that, software not yet known the error that has been successfully preventing us from inventing very useful kind of parts: Parts than can be assembled.
P.S: Thank you for referring to interesting posts. Give me some time to review leisurely to digest them.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I read the articles. They are interesting, but not related. For example, Church-Turing Thesis is basis for making the ingredient parts for making the components, parts or products. To give an analogy, if we are using steel to build a large structure such a skyscraper, can we invent another thing that is 5 times stronger, lighter and cheaper than steel to build the building.
My inventions and research is not to replace the programming logic for example by inventing new kind of programming languages. I want to address this problem: Today software is not using parts that can be assembled as illustrated in the attached PDF. We still use the same underlaying ingredient parts.
The other paper talks about “technical debt”. This is minimal if exists at all in case of products that are built by literally plugging-in custom components. The cost of refactoring each smaller component is minimal, because each component can be redesigned and tested individually outside of the product.
So “technical debt” can be easily minimized or even eliminated for each pluggable component. Over 90% of the “technical debt” can be easily minimized or eliminated, over 90% of the features and functionality is implemented in such pluggable components.
Furthermore, designers of complex products such as Boeing further minimized “technical debt” by employing sophisticated software tools to manage and resolve coupling interfaces between the components (e.g. by automatically detecting any incompatibility or mismatch when replacing components in the field by customers).
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
I believe in purity of knowledge that is free from imperfections, impurities of flaws. Could we invent semiconductor chips, if our knowledge about electrons and how they behave in semiconductor material is flawed and filled with inexplicable imperfections? Could we invent fiber optic networks, if our knowledge about light and how they behave in optical fibers is flawed and filled with inexplicable imperfections? Could we invent cures for infections, if our knowledge about bacteria is flawed and filled with inexplicable imperfections?
Problem is imperfections, impurities of flaws in our knowledge. We must get rid of the impurities of flaws. Software researchers are clueless about components (i.e. parts that are conducive to be assembled) and CBD/CBE, which is implementing substantial portion of features and functionality of each product in parts that are conducive to be assembled.
Isn’t it dangerous to having flawed knowledge, if the knowledge successfully prevents us from seeing the objective reality or truth? Please see this question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_one_is_better_Not_knowing_at_all_or_having_flawed_knowledge_such_as_wrong_belief_that_is_perceived_to_be_self-evident_fact_for_eternity
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
My point is, we could not have created them and progressed to this point without gaining objective knowledge. In fact, I accidentally stumbled onto parts that can be plugged in year 2000, which lead to this research. I was also blinded by negative knowledge, so it took me so many years of passionate work to overcome prejudice.
Mankind was able to recognize the potential of penicillin, because we had zero knowledge rather than negative knowledge.
Any knowledge that clouds, blurs or masks/hides reality/truth is a negative knowledge. The 16th century dominant geocentric paradigm is a classic example for a black-hole of negative knowledge, where negative BoK (Body of Knowledge) for black-hole expanded by consuming research efforts for 1800 years (between 300BC and 16th century).
Existing dominant paradigm is another example for black-hole of negative knowledge, where the negative BoK (Body of Knowledge) for black-hole expanded by consuming research efforts for past 50 to 60 years. Can we continue our debate in this question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_one_is_better_Not_knowing_at_all_or_having_flawed_knowledge_such_as_wrong_belief_that_is_perceived_to_be_self-evident_fact_for_eternity
Kepler and Galileo had no need to struggle so long, if mankind hadn’t accumulated so much negative BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on flawed belief “the Earth is static”. Any knowledge that clouds, blurs or masks/hides reality/truth is a negative knowledge.
Why should I struggle so much to prove the obvious: We can divide parts used for building products (e.g. cars, computers, airplanes, cell-phones, machines or factory machinery) into two kinds (1) ingredient parts that are not conducive to be assembled such as steel, metals, alloys, plastic, rubber specialized material such as silicon to make chips, Lead-acid or Nickle-Cadmium to make batteries, and (2) parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled, where such parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled are widely known or referred to as components.
The components are created by using the ingredient parts, so both kinds of parts are complimentary. The components (i.e. parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled) are extremely valuable in designing and developing large or complex products. Although there is no valid reason why we can’t design and build software products by assembling components (i.e. parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled), such components are not yet invented (because no one ever tried to invent such components). The negative knowledge accumulated by relying on flawed beliefs successfully preventing researchers from seeing obvious reality that is obvious to even the laymen.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
It would not have taken long for discovering the Truth, if the 16th century researchers were open to explore other possibilities for 2300 years old untested and unproven primordial belief or conclusion “the Earth is static at the centre”. The problem was that the research community in 16th century refused to even contemplate any other alternative to the 2300 years old primeval belief “the Earth is static at the centre”. http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology
Unfortunately, even in 21st century, software research community is not much different, because the researchers have been blindly defending such primordial conclusion reached when software was in its infancy. They have been stubbornly refusing to explore any other alternative to the 50 to 60 years old untested and unproven primordial flawed beliefs or conclusions about the components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Engineering or Development/Building) of products.
The problem is not discovering the Truth. It is not hard to discover the Truth, if the researchers are open to investigating evidence and facts to discover the Truth/Reality. The problem is stubborn refusal of research’s to explore alternative possibilities for such untested and unproven primordial beliefs or conclusions even when sound counter evidence and facts are presented to subvert dominant paradigm.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Mr. Peter,
It is not really scientific, if you work on guesses, beliefs, assumptions or hunch, particularly in the context of hard sciences. A scientific fact such as “the Sun is at the center and other plants rotate around the sun” is not stands on evidence, but inability to find counter evidence. This fact and the existence of gravity can be invalidated by finding counter evidence. The planets going around the sun because of the force of gravity.
You said: Who says scientist didn't believe that the earth was not the centre, but could not claim this for fear of society?
I am sure no one agrees such people are scientists. Certainly I don’t think they are scientists. If they are scientists, they would back it by evidence. Keep in mind, this thread is in the context of hard sciences.
Let me quote Karl Popper: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.
You said: Science is not always what is written down.
I agree. But an important part of scientific research is invalidating such written down things, if they are flawed by finding counter evidence. I have been struggling for many years to expose a 50 years old lie that is at the very foundation of existing software engineering paradigm.
The lie that diverted software engineering research into a wrong path 50 years ago was: “reusable parts are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering)”. Existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) has been accumulated by relying on this lie.
I am sure, “particular kind of parts that can be assembled and disassembled are components for CBD/CBE”. This or similar fact that is even closer to reality would put scientific research on the right path, as Copernicus’s discovery that “the Sun is at the center”. The Copernicus’s discovery was far from perfect, but it was credited for scientific revolution by subverting then dominant paradigm and putting research efforts into a right path.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Software