Dear Friends,
I can bet that no one in the world today (particularly in the software industry) knows or has the right answers to two simple questions: (i) What a component is, and (ii) What is meant by CBE (Component-Based Engineering), in the reality and context of all other engineering disciplines such as mechanical, electronics, and aerospace engineering.
Learning the right answers to these two simple questions would have two huge benefits: (i) Inventing effective solutions for the notorious software crisis by eliminating infamous spaghetti code, and (ii) Proving Computer Science is a fake science (i.e. paradox), that opens the door to transforming Computer Science into a real science that can address not only problems that have stood unsolved for decades (e.g. human-like computer intelligence that can be achieved by gaining valid scientific knowledge about the functioning and anatomy of bio-neurons in bio-neural networks) but also problems of the future such as bio-cellular computing, which cannot be solved by fake scientists or practitioners of fake science.
If a problem requires acquiring valid scientific knowledge, it is impossible for fake scientists practicing fake science to acquire such valid scientific knowledge essential to solving the problem. To provide tangible proof, I invented effective solutions for the infamous software crisis by gaining and using valid scientific knowledge that can provide the right answers to these simple questions about components, where scientific knowledge implies knowledge that clearly falls under the realm of science and is acquired without violating the core principles and proven rules of the scientific method.
I have been requesting software researchers to find right answers to the simple questions for over a decade, and my request has been seen as heresy. Please see attached PDF.
Why does the software research community find it repugnant or heretical when requested to recognize the reality and truth objectively? I feel, any Scientist must be ashamed of himself if he feels such a request is repugnant or heretical and resort to snubbing and personal attacks.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends,
One of the hardest problems we all face (as a researcher or a scientist) is inability to make observations objectively, without any subconscious or subliminal prejudice or biases influenced by preconceived notion.
Let me try to explain by using as example. Both Galileo and Kepler were good friends and working to promote Heliocentric model. Galileo already conducted experiments about motion and have strong opinions about things.
Galileo was not able to comprehend non-uniform speeds of the planets and elliptical orbits. Galileo believed that the planets must be traveling at uniform speed and orbiting in circular orbits.
Kepler on the other hand, is not theoretical physicist conducting on motion, so ignored all such distractions to document observations objectively. For example, no bothered about mysterious acceleration and deceleration, when orbiting.
We all have pre-conceived notions and biases, and they skew our perception of reality away from the objective reality. It took me more than a decade to make such objective observations about the components.
I may not be perfect, but I hope I improved substantially. I used to find many large shortcoming more frequently few years back. But, now I am finding minor shortcoming rarely. I feel this is evidence, that I get close to objective reality.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science