Dear Dr. Peter,

            What are the trees? Weather answer to this question is objective or ideological choice? What are the animals? Weather answer to this question is objective or ideological choice? What are the bacteria? Weather answer to this question is objective or ideological choice?

            Usually, scientists find answers to such questions by acquiring and documenting BoK (Body of Knowledge) using “scientific method”.

            What are the components used for building products such as cars, computers, airplanes or machines mankind uses everyday? Weather answer to this question is objective or ideological choice?

            Don’t we need to use “scientific method” for finding answers to such questions by acquiring and documenting BoK (Body of Knowledge)? Existing descriptions and definitions for components have no basis in reality or facts

            In fact, the definitions are in clear contradiction to the objective reality we know about the physical components we use in designing, engineering and building countless products such as cars, computers or machinery.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Vergne,

            Requesting computer scientists to use “scientific method” to acquire knowledge about nature and properties for finding description to the components is not spam. Is it spam to request software scientists to use proven scientific method?

             Please do notify ResearchGate  about me, if you think it is spam. I am not spamming your message thread. In fact, you are spamming my message thread. If you can’t understand the question or can’t answer the questions, no one is forcing you to post in this thread.

               Any new paradigm by nature is incommensurable by nature. Please read famous book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn. The first paragraph in this great synopsis says: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html

             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".

             Software researchers have been committing all three mistakes defined by Dr. Kuhn’s famous book. Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Popper are considered two of the greatest 20th century philosophers of science. Dr. Popper works describe ideal scientific method, while Dr. Kuhn describes no perfect states of scientific knowledge.

              Many software researchers feel, It is heresy to use scientific method for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) about things such as components for CBD and neurons for real-AI. If you are one of them, just make notify ResearchGate  about me.

              I clearly made my position clear in this paper (which has more than 500 reads): 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

P.S: I have a decency. So, I do not spam other's thread. If I don't understand, I don't mind admitting it. I don't pretend that I am an expert in things I don't understand. Everything I am saying is hard and passionate work spanning 16 years. Self funded research. I don't care about score. It is easy to get score by promoting geocentric lies. No one get score by questioning the lies. 

            How can you maintain research quality of RG by killing ideological diversity or diversity of views? Questioning untested belief "reusable parts are components" is not wrong. In fact, it is sacred duty of each researcher to expose such lies by questioning untested or unproven myths.

         Computer science is in this state because of the people like you. You never asked for proof for such lies. But you think, it is spam, if I try to prove that it is a lie. Please watch first 15 minutes videos of Parenti about objectivity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_iAXYBUSk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2lisF4XGg

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

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

Dear Dr. Peter,

            You are president of this club: Many software researchers feel, it is heresy to use scientific method for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) about things such as description or properties of components for CBD and neurons for real-AI.  

           Dr. Vergne might like to become vice-president of this club. You know you are one of the reason to write that paper. I am bearing your abuses, because it is kind of helping me get better in ironout wrinkles in terminology.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”  … Albert Einstein

             In social sciences unanimity of biases or prejudice can be passed as objectivity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_iAXYBUSk. In real science, any fact such as essential properties of physical things must be supported by falsifiable evidence. The falsifiable doesn’t imply it is flawed, but it can be proven false, if it is flawed. Every scientific fact and theory is supported by such falsifiable evidence or proof.

                 You can’t find better vice-president than Dr. Vergne, because he wants to kill the descendent and/or heterodox views by reporting to Vatican (sorry RG). He wants to silence me; as 17th century philosophers silenced Galileo by instigating inquisition. Recall Galileo's defiant murmur: It still moves!

              He provided no evidence to the lie “reusable parts are components for CBD/CBE”. It is a lie, even if you can silence me.

             He is dismissing any amount of evidence to prove the fact: The CBD/CBE is implementing large portion of features and functionality of a product in multiple components (i.e. parts that can be assembled are known as components) and building the product by assembling the components.

           For example, large portion of functionality and features of computer is implemented in components (that are plugged-in) such as CPU, DRAM or HardDrive etc. Likewise, large portion of functionality and features of Car is implemented in components (that are assembled) such as engine, gearbox, wheels and alternator etc. One can find hundred such examples or evidence.

          On the other hand, reusable parts that are not assembled such as steel, plastic, paint, cement, metal alloys or silicon wafers to make computer chips are not components. Each of them are highly standardized (e.g. TMT steel or 53 grade cement) for reuse across many product families.

           Dr. Peter, like you, Dr. Vergne thinks that in computer science there is no room for descent and he feels descent must be crushed. Poor folks like me have no right to question untested and unproven lies such as “parts that can be reused are components” and "CBD/CBE is using such fake components". He expects me to accept such blatant lies without questioning.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Don’t you know how to use, View Source to see the source code in web-pages? It is a magic. You should try often. You can find some code here: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/containercomponents.

              Code to use the reusable GUI components can be found here (click on the image to see code for presenting the component): http://www.pioneer-soft.com/Bhalu%20Docs/Samples/BhaluCharts.html

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Verge,

            What is you point? All the books on Trees only talk about trees. All the books in virology only talk about viruses. Many great researches spent all their lives just to expose one error at the root of geocentric model. Just see the chronology: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology.

         Why they had to spend 150 years to convince the research community to investigate the evidence? Are they spaming for 100 years, when they had been struggling to show evidence to expose the huge error? Please see below:

            Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed. The error 2300 years ago diverted research efforts into a wrong path. Relying on the error for accumulating BoK (Body of Knowledge) resulted in complex geocentric paradox by 16th century.

            If the error were not yet exposed, all the greatest scientists (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Bose or Max Plank to name a few) born since 17th century could not have made any lasting contribution, except may be exposing the flawed belief at the root of geocentric paradox. I am sure dozens of great scientists might have borne during 1000 years before the 16th century, who wasted all their lives trying to explain epicycles and retrograde motions of the geocentric paradox.

             Today, existing geocentric paradox of software engineering is supported by 20 to 30 times BoK than existed in the 16th century in support of geocentric paradox. Tens of thousands of researchers around the world have been wasting their efforts on the geocentric paradox of the software engineering.

            Each year millions of impressionable students and research scholars in the collages and universities across the world having been brainwashed into believing “it is a self-evident fact that reusable parts are components” by all the text books and research papers in unanimity. 

             There is no exception to this rule: Any research or investigation efforts end up on a wrong path, if the efforts rely of a flawed implicit unproven belief (by believing that the belief is self-evident, so requires no proof). We know for fact that, no one ever tested or even questioned the axiomatic beliefs reusable parts are components and CBD/CBE is using such fake components.

            If this is an error, no meaningful or lasting advancement is possible related to CBD/CBE until the error is exposed (even if the error were not exposed for another 1000 years). Exposing this error would lead to unprecedented scientific revolution in software (e.g. exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradox lead to unprecedented scientific revolution). I hope, you could imagine the magnitude and implications, if my discoveries are right (that I have no doubt).

           Each year billions of dollars being invested on software engineering research. Tens of thousands of brilliant students are being indoctrinated into the geocentric paradox of software engineering. They are going to waste their lives to make sense of incomprehensible epicycles and retrograde motions of the geocentric paradox of software engineering.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Verge,

You said:

> CBD/CBE

> you are right

> researchers are wrong

> how to make them understand their foolishness?

            You should stop instigating other researchers using such dirty tactics. It is not civilized way. This is how researchers instigated Vatican to start inquisition. The Vatican got bad name, but the real culprits were the incompetent researchers.

            What Galileo said was: The Sun is at the center. The Earth is not static. If any one thinks such statement of falsifiable fact was insulting, it is his problem. If he is competent, falsify Galileo’s proof and evidence. Only incompetent people instigating others using such dirty tactics.

            I have been saying that, existing definitions (or beliefs) for components are never tested and never proven. If they were tested, where is the results? No one ever even dared to question the sacred beliefs, because of the people like you using such evasive dirty tricks.

              The assumptions or descriptions must be proved. If there is a proof for them, show the proof. Saying that the existing untested and unproven assumptions are flawed is not a personal attack nor an insult. It is a falsifiable statement. If you disagree, try to falsify. If you take it as an insult, just stay away from my threads. But don't use such evasive dirty tricks.

              Is this kind of falsifiable statement insulting: Existing software engineering paradigm is rooted in 50 to 60 years-old untested and unproven assumptions such as “reusable parts are components for CBD/CBD (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering)?

             Why it is any different from this falsifiable statement: The 16th century geocentric paradigm was rooted in 2300 years old untested and unproven assumptions “the Earth is at the center”? You may feel that such efforts are repugnant or heresy, but such efforts were life time endeavors for many great researchers.

             The battles raged  for 100 years was not about which planet is at the center but to convince researchers to investigate evidence to validate the belief: the Earth is static - not moving (so all the other planets including the Sun must be moving around the Earth).

            Existing state: the CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is using and composing reusable software parts, because components are defined as reusable software parts.

         It was inconceivable to the 16th century researchers the possibility that the Earth is moving at an astonishing speed (that now we know is 30KM/Second).

         Today many experts resorting to personal attacks for stating that software engineering is rooted in untested and unproven beliefs (considered 50 to 60 years ago self-evident facts for eternity), because it was inconceivable that such mistake can still possible even in 21st century.

Good Bye,

Raju