This is an essay and an opinion, and it requires a long study of components of what you write abut, and is definitely beyond any person's question answering time allocation. What you say is an opinion paper in ethics of scientific investigation. You may want to take such a class if you are a student or talk with philosophers in this field if you are a researcher. I hope this advice helps.

Dear Dr. Yung,

            Thank you for your kind reply. My question is, don’t respected scientists need to provide proof for the pieces of knowledge they have been prompting or propagating. If there is no proof for such pieces of knowledge (in the theoretical foundation), how can anyone guarantee that the pieces of knowledge are nothing more than myths, fiction or beliefs (e.g. such the Earth is static)?

            I have irrefutable proof that the Body of Knowledge related to so called software components and CBSD (Component Based Software Design) is rooted in nothing more than wishful thinking and fiction (that is to build software by assembling reusable components as hardware designers build computers by using COTS-Commercially off the Shelf components). This completely defies the reality of software products: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html

            The above is a wrong path. Software could never achieve this goal. One must discover the reality to find right path for technological progress: the reality of CBD is implementing over 90% of the features and functionality in replaceable components, which are custom designed to fit exactly the target product. Where each replaceable component can be quickly unplugged (or disassembled) and re-plugged-in (or re-assembled).

                I can provide irrefutable proof that this goal can be achieved. I have created 1000 of real-software-components for achieving real CBSD. For example, the real CBD is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

                 I have been struggling for years to demonstrate proof to expose the flaw. Also, trying to demonstrate proof for my discoveries. Only thing I have been getting is patronizing or condescending advices form most software researchers, while other resorting to personal attacks or humiliating snubbing.

                   Sir, my complaint is: Everyone says Truth always prevails over unproven beliefs and myths in Science. Aren’t we fooled? Is it just a political statement? Then what is the difference between dirty politics and computers science? But today situation in computer science is, we are under fear to expose flaws (i.e. myths, preconceived notions and prejudice) by using Truths and irrefutable evidence.

                   The error diverted research effort into a wrong path. No meaningful progress is possible in the geocentric paradox of software engineering until the error is fixed for putting the research efforts on the right path. Only way it can be done is by gaining necessary knowledge by using “scientific method”. But many software researchers insist that software is sub-discipline of mathematics and refusing to know the reality for gain essential knowledge about the components and CBD.

                     Almost every expert insists that it is impossible to achieve real CBD for software, but none of them know what is the reality of CBD for physical products. Without even knowing what it is or even trying to know what it is, how anyone can say it is impossible. I have poof to expose such prejudice and myths, but no one willing to know truth give me an opportunity. Also many of the have been refusing to provide proof for the pieces of myths and prejudice, they have been promoting and teaching as knowledge (i.e. theoretical foundation).

                   Sir, I don’t think, this kind of thing could happen in any other scientific discipline. Computer science is closer to mythology than even science or mathematics. Even in mathematics, one can’t rely on axioms, if mathematical steps lead to contradiction. In software, we are not using any mechanism for detecting flawed assumptions or axioms.

                If I am successful in exposing the error at the root of the BoK for CBSD, this results in more critical look at process we are using to validate assumptions and beliefs. For example, the scientific method was formalized in 17th century to avoid such mistakes (i.e. relying on myths and beliefs as if they are self-evident facts for evolving BoK) that led to geocentric paradox at any cost. Only software researchers repeated that kind of mistake.

               Sir, any Truth can prevail and even shines brighter and brighter under rigorous validation under open bright lights. But how can it prevail, if everyone think it is an heresy and try to ignore or cover-up? It is not acceptable to use excuses such as software is not science, software is different. If it is different, in what manner and why? It is not different by nature but due to the mistake of relying on myths or flawed beliefs.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Article What is true essence of Component Based Design?

Article Brief Introduction to COP (Component Oriented Programming)

There are many ways to "do science" outside of scientific method. The foundation of science is reproducibility, and such ends can be established without experimental design. There is a broad area of inquiry around qualitative rather than quantitative research, for example, much of it not stipulating the formulation of a hypothesis up front. Grounded theory development is not Cartesian but is commonly used for phenemology in the medical field. The techniques are Design Thinking are arguably scientific but not Cartesian.

Many "scientific" discoveries come by accident. Maybe we have only God to blame for robbing scientist's dutifulness to the pursuit of knowledge through Cartesian method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/g1216/10-awesome-accidental-discoveries/

It's important to remember that Descartes himself described his method as having three steps: analysis, synthesis, and "denombrement," or "overall meditative auditing." Most so-called scientists omit the last one and some omit the last two. Descartes himself started admitting a perspective late in his life that was more like that of Pascal: more spiritual and more based on intuition and what in the modern era we might call Design Thinking.

Dr. Coplien,

            Thank you. I agree, there is no need for scientific method for making discoveries. But the purpose of “scientific method” is to make sure that the discovery is True. A proven mechanism to validate and correct the errors in the discovery. How do we know we are not deviating from right path: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis

            Sir, as explained above article, both mathematics (e.g. axiomatic systems) and science have proven methods to validate the knowledge. My contention is not how a new discovery can be made, but how we know the discovery is flaw less. For example, the existing definitions for software components and CBD blatantly violate reality we know about the physical components and CBD of physical products. Also kindly don’t forget Descartes famous quote “I think, therefor I am” – Everything must be validated.

            Also computer science and software engineering ended up in crisis, having so many contradictions and anomalies. All of them justified by using excuses such as software is unique or different. This is not true. The reason for retrograde motions and epicycles is myths and unproven beliefs at the root of BoK (Bod of Knowledge). The error (i.e. axiomatic belief ‘the Earth is static’) led to the geocentric paradox – A complex altered perception of reality backed by huge BoK accumulated for 1500 years. Likewise, the unproven beliefs about so called components led to the existing CBSD paradox in software - altered perception of reality backed by huge BoK accumulated for 50 years.

              My goal is to expose the mistake. The mistake would be apparent, if researchers discover the reality – the True essence of CBD of physical products and the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component. The best method to gain such knowledge (which is accurate) and validate the knowledge is scientific methods and processes.

              Any knowledge is more valuable if it is valid and we understand the context it is more effective. Technological research needs this kind of measurement and context for making useful inventions. I am only asking software researchers to discover the reality. It is impossible to find a valid reason, why we can achieve real CBD for software. But no one even knows what is true essence of CBD.

               Sir, the main reason for infamous software crisis is spaghetti design/code. The True essence of CBD is to eliminate the spaghetti design/code. Just gaining the knowledge about reality (i.e. nature of components and CBD) solves software crisis. I have been trying for years and no one wants to know such reality.

            Sir, every one insist CBSD is using so called reusable components. If I politely request any one to either give me an opportunity that it is unproven myth or if I ask them to provide proof, many of them resort to personal attacks. Many of them insist that it is impossible to achieve real CBD for software. But fact is, I created many CBD applications for many years. Our team (at pioneer-soft.com) creating every day real-software-components for web applications. I have been asking only for an opportunity to demonstrate irrefutable proof, but only being insulted or snubbed.

              Toady no other GUI-platform (e.g. from Microsoft or Apple) can create real-software-components essential for achieving real-CBD. They can redesign their GUI-platforms in no time, if and when they discover “what is real software component”. Each of such missing pieces for achieving real-CBD/COP can be implemented in no time, if they only try to discover the Truth/reality. This kind of knowledge can be acquired within weeks, but the problem is they are refusing to know the Truth.

            The infamous software crisis cannot be solved until this Truth is discovered. Instead researchers have been wasting their efforts on geocentric paradox of software engineering. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the error at the root of geocentric paradox were not yet exposed. Software researchers repeating the same mistake for 30 years. There is no other way except exposing the error. But many experts feel offended, if I say, there is an error at the root of existing CBSD paradox.

P.S: I too accidentally stumbled on to fascinating new kind of components that can be literally assembled and disassembled in minutes  nearly 15 years ago. It took me more than a decade to find logical explanation and reasoning to know that they are real-software-components.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

CEO, Pioneer-soft.com

Research Proposal Isn't it a fraud, if any scientific or engineering disciplin...

The great thing about a theory about methodology of development is that first and foremost you do not need to prove it in publications. What you do you become successful in software development: if you are right you will do better than others, period. Then, if you want to write about your experience as an alternative method, just describe it. (You are right that it is hard to compare engineering methodologies, since no one will invest in double efforts, as a true scientific method requires, and then comparative study.) So, the real solution is to employ the method that works for you and be successful with it. Granted, it will be hard to demonstrate that your method is superior but I am not sure the first step is about doing it: just use it and describe later how successful you are with it. Since first of all you claim it allows you to do better software development your primary goal of being more successful in development will be achieved whether you get some fame or not (about your method). Then, describing why your method is working very well, without just talking badly about others is in place (to get social acceptability), and convince people in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary fashion and minimizing criticism but rather show your advantages only.

This at least has some chance to be successful in promoting your way. There is no unique way, since software can be developed in many ways, so over criticism is not helpful in a field that has many paths to do things. Rather a step by step methodology of advocating your (assuming successful) method is in place. People are naturally acting like people and advocate what they know. If you start with a strong attack you will not get attention from people. You need to plan how to present a new paradigm step by step, recognize this is the state of the field and incrementally without being angry at others plan to spread the new ideas.

Dear Dr. Yung,

            Sir, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I am not talking about methodology, but Body of Knowledge (or theoretical foundation) and validity of the Knowledge. Can we invent fiber optic networks by being clueless about nature of light and how it works in fiber optics? Can we invent computer chips by being clues about nature and properties of electrons and how they behave in semi-conductor material? Can we invent cures for infections by being clueless about bacteria?

            Sir, I am making a falsifiable statement: No one ever tried to know the nature and essence of CBD of physical products. Software researchers are clueless about the reality and essence of CBD of physical products. You can falsify my statement by finding a general description that is roughly accurate (i.e. may not be precise but can’t be false).

            How can we invent real CBD for software by being clueless about objective reality such as nature and essence of the CBD and essential properties of software components?

            For example, assume {R, S} are the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. That is, no part can be components without having the essential properties. No one have knowledge about this objective reality ever define any other software part not having these essential properties as software component, if it is quite simple to invent software components having the essential properties.

            The fact is that it is straightforward to invent software components having the essential properties and achieve real CBD for software by literally assembling such real software components. Only thing missing is accurate knowledge about the objective reality. This kind of mistake in the BoK likely preventing us form addressing other problems such as AI (real Artificial Intelligence) by emulating neurons and neural networks.

            Sir, researchers of real science don’t tolerate anomalies. Researchers of mathematics don’t tolerate contradictions (e.g. in axiomatic systems). Why is it acceptable in computer science? We are screaming that software is in crisis and complaining about spaghetti code (e.g. Big Ball of Mud, Mythical Man Month or No silver bullet). Except designers and developers of software products, no other product in the world is infested with spaghetti design.

            Sir, every other modern scientific, logic or engineering discipline is employing proven mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms, theories or beliefs. In hard sciences, we have objective reality to continuously measure and correct each of the theories and facts in the BoK (Body of Knowledge), where the BoK provides theoretical or scientific foundation for engineering researchers for making useful inventions. In mathematics/logic, the mathematical methods leads to a glaring contradiction (e.g. such as 1 = 0), if a theory or axiom is wrong. In computer science, such mechanisms for continuous validation and/or correction of flawed axioms or beliefs have been ignored.

Software researchers can’t blindly make up definitions or theories for including in BoK (by insisting such flawed theories or beliefs are self-evident facts): If my mission is to reach Asia from San Francisco, is it OK to name (or define) the direction I am going is West (even if I am sailing from San Francisco to South Pole)? Can I define whatever direction I am going is "West" to create an illusion that I am going West. After reaching the South Pole, can I declare that my mission to reach Asia is successful by defining the place I reached is Asia? If I were given a mission to visit the Mars, can I claim that I visited the Mars by defining Sahara desert is the Mars and visiting the Sahara desert?

That is exactly what software researchers have been doing with impunity: The existing definitions for components have been creating an illusion that software engineering is using components. The CBD for software is defined as using such fake components. Whatever kind of software parts researchers feel useful is defined as a kind of software components, without any basis in logic, reasoning or consideration to reality/fact. Whatever the destination such fake components lead to is called a kind of CBD for software.

The above approach for acquiring theoretical knowledge for BoK for software engineering defies even common scene. How can it be it a science? How can it be a mathematics/logic (e.g. consistent axiomatic system)? How can it be engineering? Isn’t it a fraud (or at last monumental sloppiness/ignorance)? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis

Proven mechanisms for detecting flawed axioms, theories, hypothesis or beliefs are absolutely essential for any method for acquiring useful knowledge. The theoretical foundation for computer science is not an exception. No knowledge is useful, if it is invalid/wrong and often insidiously harmful, if it is flawed. Any scientific, logic or engineering discipline can’t afford to foolishly throw caution (or even basic common sense) to the winds in pursuit of fool’s errand by relying on such insidious flawed knowledge. Effective mechanisms are essential for not only to validate/detect any flawed theories (or axioms) but also continuously refining each proven theory/fact in the BoK based on new evidence, for example, to explain new anomalies (if and when discovered) or based on new context (e.g. if and when effects of obscure or rare outlier events are discovered).

Sir, you have no idea what kind of problems I have been facing. How do you feel, if so called experts call you a liar or even fraud when you speak Truth (that contradicts their myths or prejudice), but refuse to see your proof and evidence? How can any one explain facts and new discoveries, if it ruins his career?

I am sure you are teaching your students about software components. Can you prove what you are teaching to your students is not flawed? If you give me opportunity, I can prove that it is flawed. I am making many falsifiable stalemates, each of which can be backed by irrefutable proof and evidence (most of it is openly provided in my websites).

Sir, with all due respect as a scientist and researcher, don’t you have obligation to investigate evidence to discover the Truth? I am sure such statement infuriates you. These kinds of confrontation led to the killing of Guardian Bruno and imprisonment of Galileo about 400 years ago. Unfortunately 21st century is not much different. Software experts feel offended by the Truths that contradict they unproven myths and prejudice.

Sir, I intend no disrespect. Just like to explain what is going on in our field. I feel, purpose of scientific research is pursuit of absolute Truth, it not necessarily implies discovering the absolute Truth but at least try to get closer and closer to the Truth. I feel, it is the sacred duty of any scientist. In computers science, the environment is not conducive for open debate and honest exchange of ideas.

P.S: I will be out of office for next two days, so might not be able to respond.

Best Regards,

Raju

Research Proposal Isn't it a fraud, if any scientific or engineering disciplin...

Raju Chiluvuri,

Thanks for your answer.

Cartesian method, and most of its application to scientific endeavours, is hierarchical in nature and precipitates from a single theorm-to-be. You can find the top in a simple system. If you are lucky, you can decompose it, even recursively, down to ideas that Descartes called "claire et distinct," which scientists call axioms. The number of nodes in the decomposition graph may be reasonable for a simple system, and Cartesian method may be tractable for problems so simple that they have good solutions.

First, this has nothing to do with truth. Science is a religion based on faith in today's axioms. Our quiver of axioms has changed many times, in many fields, since Descartes. We will never have truth; Heisenberg, Gödel and others get in the way. The best you can do is a postulate or theorem. Get over it.

Second, most complex systems have many tops. If we decompose each of those tops into nodes, then we need to deal with the combinatorics of the interaction between the nodes distending from each of the tops; those are themselves nodes in the Cartesian decomposition. If you do this more than about three levels for a moderately complex problem you soon end up with more nodes than grains of sand on the seashores. Forget about proving anything. All you can do is to argue what you have seen. You can model it, even with mathematics, but the model isn't the object, and deriving properties of the model doesn't necessarily prove that the same holds for the object. Diffie says, "We in science are spoiled by the success of mathematics. Mathematics is the study of problems so simple that they have good solutions."

I like empirical science and the ability to define statistical bounds based on observation. It's good enough. Newtonian physics was good enough in this regard for many years and the models we have today are good enough for most things we do today. But as quantum physics replaced Newtonian physics there will always be new sets of axioms that we need to touch in our application of scientific method. Truth is a process — not something that any method will produce. Those who believe such things should be put away with the rest of the religious nuts who claim to have a monopoly on truth.

Those are the real frauds and hucksters, who wrap truth in formalism and scientific method. One can scientifically argue for a master race, for the benefits from something like the TVA project, or countless other examples I could name here that were perfectly within the scientific norms of the time, but which both depart from any deep sense of "truth" and which have unfurled untold social damage. I am very careful about claiming truth or using it as a weapon, to prop up my own results by trying to paint others doing good work as frauds. That would simply be ignorant, let alone immoral. The only truth is that truth is context-sensitive. The foundations of science tell us so, and to not understand this is to not understand science. To use Cartesian method without this caveat is simply to blind one's self to the tools at hand that meet those goals of science that are higher than satisfying a formula, getting a Ph.D, or achieving tenure.

It is not scandal to have repugnant response when asked to violate a tenet of ones creed; political, scientific, otherwise. It is repugnant scandal if a scientist does in fact acquiesce to any such suggestion, no matter how slight.

What I am saying is that you argue about a technological area (software). From history we know that exact "logical model" to talk accurately about calculus was not invented until the 20th century, yet practitioners and even mathematicians had "theorems" and applied calculus for efficient calculation in engineering. The lack of exact model, should not delay progress, and all I offer is continued "progress" (pragmatically) which is the important issue in technological science. You may be right and it may take 60-100 years to realize you are right, you should not yourself concentrate on only being right, rather than apply the way you believe in! [This is my suggested methodology of applying great truths in technological areas-- a way that humanity can enjoy it before "truth" is reached among scientists.] In no way I attempted to contradict any point in what you claim since I was talking on applying BoK technically, and pragmatically as an important component of its "truthfulness". All the best to you!

Dear Dr. Yung,

            Sir, I understand your perspective. I have been trying to do that for more than a year. It doesn’t work in our case, unless we are lucky. Also we goal is two folds (1) creating a theoretical foundation by exposing the error in existing paradox and (2) also demonstrate the power of real-COP/CBD. I have been trying both tracks. But the misconceptions and prejudice in former making the later impossible.

              Sir, it is not necessary for scientific discovery or research paper needs to be proven in the market place by investing tens of million dollars more before being accepted by research community. If that is the criteria, almost no publish paper meets that criteria. Please keep in mind products for BigData or Maps requite in-depth domain expertise, great idea and entrepreneurial execution (i.e. marketing, sales and building support infrastructure). May be you could suggest me a product idea. I can’t compete with entrenched players like Tableau or Facebook. Not every one is lucky like Henry Ford, who already owned automobile company, when he invented moving assembly line (which increased manual productivity by 7 folds).

            Another example is Eli Whitney nearly bankrupted in the process of introducing his invention Interchangeable Component (which increased manual productivity by 100 folds). It is impossible to practice Interchangeable components without inventing enabling tools such as Dies, Jigs, Moulds or Forgings etc.

            Kindly keep in mind, any product requires deep domain knowledge in customer needs, great creative vision and insights. The software is only a vehicle to implement the vision of creative genius. Having said, that I am a software engineers and I have good enough domain knowledge and understand the needs of software engineers. So I decided to build tools for software engineers, which I felt is within my budget.

              It is impossible to achieve real CBD without having the ability to create real-software-components. We created the worlds first and the most advanced GUI platform in the world that is capable of creating real-software-components. Using our GUI-platform and API, even junior Java programmers can create more complex graphics intensive real-time data driven GUI applications than practical today for even the experienced teams at Google or Microsoft.

             We approached many companies offering our GUI platform and other CASE-tools. Most large enterprise customers are notoriously conservative and don’t want to use startup products, without clear proof. Also many of the decision makers are non-technical. So they requested experts about opinion. Most experts just imply we may be lying, without even talking to us or looking at our GUI-technologies.

                  Few people looked at our real-software-components and expressed opinion that even Google and Microsoft can encapsulate such components in class definitions. It is a lie. I know for fact, it is impossible to encapsulate custom GUI-components such as City_ATC or City_ER in a class definition: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html.

            Any one can falsify this statement by showing a class definition of size such as CityATC_RCC, which encapsulate a small application having few dozen GUI components anywhere in the world: http://www.pioneer-soft.com/#/realairtraffic. This kind of applications can be created under a week by even junior Java programmers, which is nearly impractical today.

             We have been facing so much FUD and insults. They are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) based on their prejudice and myths in the minds of non-technical managers. Other experts say Goggle or Microsoft working on similar product. They express opinions that are not based on facts. These are jus a sample of problems. Due to this kind of bad mouthing, we lost many good opportunities to demonstrate the power of real software components and CBD.

               But there seams to be a light at the long end of tunnel. We are the only company in the world (or at least in India) capable of building complex 2D/3D graphics intensive real-time data driven GUI applications for next generation Industrial IOT or Smart Cities. Couple of companies approached us. We likely get the opportunity, if no one spreads FUD about our inventions or lie to them by saying wait for Google or Microsoft.

               The reality is no one can ever build such GUI platform until they discover nature of real-software-components and true essence of CBD. Even when they create such platform, it violates our patents (7,827,527; 7,840,937; 8,527,943; 8,392,877; 8,578,329 and 9,058,177). But the valid knowledge acquired by using scientific method opens up vast uncharted territory for many other invention for whole software research community.

             Sir, flawed knowledge at the root of BoK for any discipline only leads to the geocentric paradox of any scientific discipline. There is no exception to this rule. How many more decades software research community would waste their handwork, passion and research effort on such geocentric paradox. When this error is exposed, there will be an explosive growth.

              Sir, I am not asking anyone to believe me. I am only asking to investigate the facts and obvious evidence to discover the truth. I feel, discovering and defending the Truth is the sacred duty of any scientist.

             I am frustrated because, I spend many weeks trying to get an opportunity to present our inventions. Initially, most people are skeptical. I have to arrange many such meetings to get the acceptance of engineers. Then senior management tries to take opinion of some so called experts. They create FUD based on prejudice or even egos.

           Also I sense some racism (may be subconscious) that an Indian company can’t possible find a flaw in the BoK. Many scientists abdicate their sacred duty to the Truth. When a so called experd say many people creating such real-software-components, it is a lie, such lie end up costing weeks of my efort (many tips to another city for just an hour or two meetings). This is just an example. In one meating, few reserachrs ambushed me with so many unrelated and unsubstantied lies, and refuse to give me an oppertunity to counter. None of them have courage to enage in public dabate. Kindly understand the complexity of gestalt shift. Please see attachement.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Mr. Buckley,

            All I am requesting is just gain valid knowledge backed by proof. Just don’t rely on myths and fiction that are flawed. The concepts and BoK (Body of Knowledge) for CBD for software is rooted in unproven fiction and myths. No one ever tried to validate them.

            I can’t understand why any real scientists feel repugnant or heresy, when requested for proof or validate the knowledge. I never asked any one to believe me. All I requested was to investigate the evidence. Science is not a religion. Refusing to investigate the Truth is violation of basic tenants of scientific methods (or even mathematical methods).

            Sir, there is no polite way to express a Truth that is perceived to be heresy or repugnant. I feel, it is the duty of any responsible researcher to expose such Truth, if the Truth can be backed by irrefutable proof and evidence. It is the duty of the scientific community to find a flaw in the proof, before they feel that it is heresy.

            Isn’t this the reality and essence of the CBD (Component Based Design): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design. Isn’t this a proof that such real CBD is possible for software:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

            They are just example. We created thousands of such large replaceable components during past 15 years. The fact is, today no other GUI platform can create such RCC (Replaceable Component Class) for any large GUI component having few dozen chars of graphs. This is a falsifiable statement anyone can falsify by showing just one such Class implementation.

            The reality of CBD for physical products is: Implementing 90% of the features and functionality in replaceable components, where each replaceable component can be disassembled (e.g. to refine it individually free from spaghetti code) and re-assemble (e.g. after testing it individually).

            If an application has 100 such components, it must require no more than 3 to 5 lines to assemble any real component. Hence the total code in the application must be under 5*100 line of code. Each component can be refined and tested individually free from spaghetti code. Hence each component is free from spaghetti code. If 90% of the application code is implemented in such RCCs, over 90% of the application code is free from spaghetti code.

            I can demonstrate many applications we already created and/or can build any application for our customers, if they ask for proof. Most scientists feel repugnant, if we ask for an opportunity for demonstrating such proof. Other insists, they have seen such RCCs for large GUI components. We know for fact that they are wrong. They feel repugnant, if we humble request they to show an example. I don’t know what to say, if you feel it is OK for scientists.

            That is the reason, I felt, I was fooled. I was led to believe, any real scientist must back his theories or concepts by falsifiable proof and evidence (which can’t be falsified by using existing knowledge but can be falsified if and when new evidence is discovered).

          Also I was led to believe, real scientists can reject any new discovery backed by irrefutable proof and evidence only by finding a flaw in the proof. I believe this is the expectation of any naive researcher: His work would be judged based on merits. If this is not True, I feel many researchers think, they were fooled. Doesn’t he deserve an opportunity to present his proof? Today my discoveries are being discredited by resorting to personal attacks or insults.

Best Regards,

Raju

Article What is true essence of Component Based Design?

Article Brief Introduction to COP (Component Oriented Programming)

Dear Mr. Cherf,

            There are certain exceptions to this rule. For example, the Truth that there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass and the bodies are separated by a given distance. Newton relied on this absolute Truth for discovering the magnitude of the force of attraction in terms of the masses and the distance, which is very good approximation to the absolute Truth for most of the practical purposes. It is a big step in the right direction. Einstein’s discoveries improved the measurement of the magnitude of the force of attraction. Further improvement may be possible to get even closer to absolute Truth.

              Another example, each and every physical being (including the physical components) have certain set of unique properties and the properties are objective reality – This is my core conviction and set my path for research. I relied on this absolute Truth, for discovering the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component. The properties are certainly not absolute Truths but are close enough to the absolute Truth for most practical purposes for achieving real CBD. I am sure there is lot of room for improvements.

                 But I believe my discoveries are close and certainly a big step in the right direction. I am still working on my understanding the objective reality and facts about the physical components and essence of the CBD. If and when, an outlier point or anomaly is discovered, I have to adjust my understanding of reality accordingly. We don’t know lot of things about light or electrons, but it didn’t prevent us from inventing fiber optic networks or semiconductor chips.

             Whatever we know is good enough to make such inventions, and these inventions can be improved as and when we gain more valid knowledge. Unfortunately software researchers feel, such knowledge about objective reality (of component or CBD) is useless for software engineering. My experience proves otherwise.

       The crux of the conflict lies in this disagreement. I am not disagreeing with you, but there are exceptions to this rule (e.g. certain core conviction that determine right path for scientific research and for gaining valuable knowledge).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Coplien,

            Sorry I didn’t see your message, until now. I agree with you in most cases, but there are certain things we must rely on as absolute Truths. I clearly explained this in one of my earlier papers may be a year ago.

            Our scientific knowledge is based on certain pillars/seeds, such as (1)  the Sun is at the center of planetary system, and planets circling around the Sun, (2) there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass and separated by certain distance (2.1) the force increases, if the mass increases, (2.2) the force derrises, if the distance increases.

            As you could see, the first one is a broad statement, without ant mention of orbital paths. The later not try to quantify the force of attraction, except making general statements. Newton tried to quantify the magnitude of the force of attraction. It is very good approximation.

            I consider this is an absolute Truth: There exists an accurate description (e.g. a set of essential properties) for each and every kind of physical beings, such as light, electrons or even components, which are objective facts.

            It looks like I am repeating my previous answer. Kindly refer to the above. Also this is my position for many years. I never said, my discoveries are absolute Truths, but I have been saying that they expose a huge existing error. For example, the discovery that “the Sun is at the center” exposed a huge error. This discovery contradicted then conventional wisdom “the Earth is static” and BoK. Exposing the error put the scientific progress in right path.

            My discovery contradicts the existing BoK. If my discovery is right, the whole of existing CBSD paradigm would be invalid. It puts the research effort in right path. Even in axiomatic systems, if there is an error, any series of steps lead to a contradiction (e.g. 0 = 1). I am only requesting software researchers to not ignore such contradiction. If we trace back the steps, it would likely lead to flawed axiom.  Software engineering is in crisis due to so many inexplicable contradictions (i.e. epicycles and retrograde motions).

            Not all absolute truths are frauds, as you suggested. Certain absolute Truths as seeds are essential for expanding our knowledge around the seed. If the seed is flawed, we end up with geocentric paradoxes. The seed for existing software engineering in general and CBSD in particular is corrupt.

            My goal is to expose the flawed seed at the root of existing software engineering paradigm, which requires an alternate more accurate proposal such as “the Sun is at the center” – to put the research effort on the right path. If you read my papers and my web site, you would see that I am always consistent.

            However, what I am saying is that, the path I discovered is the right path. The path CBSD research effort progressing for past 50 years is wrong path. Even if it is perceived to be repugnant and heresy, I will stand by this statement and willing to defend it by provide irrefutable proof and evidence.

            Dr. Coplien, may be you are not consciously aware of them, but I am sure you and every researcher also have such seed convictions at the core of your research efforts. You can make useful progress, only if the seed Truths are not fundamentally flawed (e.g. like “the Earth is static” or “reusable parts are components for CBSD”). If there is a huge flaw in such seed, you must be thankful to anyone who could save your valuable efforts, by exposing such flaw.

Best Regards,

Raju

While a main feature of the emergence of scientific inquiry (the so-called scientific revolution) was an emphasis on method, the identification of “a” scientific method that is sufficiently restrictive to be useful in adjudicating “violation” of the method is highly problematic. Paul Feyerabend, despite his inconsistencies and polemics, makes a point that is very hard to argue against. Given any specific definition of a scientific method, one can find a significant scientific breakthrough that violates it. I.e., any conceivable set of rules, if followed, would have prevented at least one great advancement. I give further casual thoughts on this issue here: https://themultidisciplinarian.com/2016/08/01/the-myth-of-scientific-method/

Dear Dr. Storage,

            Let me present my perspective: The purpose of “scientific method” is not to say how a discovery can be made or how one should go about making the discovery. I don’t see any restrictions.

            The philosophers in the 17th century formulated the “scientific method” to prevent repeating certain errors, such as: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost

            The purpose is to prevent scientific effort being diverted into a wrong path due to such mistake. For example, the so called self-evident fact “the Sun at the center” diverted the research efforts into a wrong path. Saying the truth that “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense and then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Today software researchers feel that it is the heresy to questions the validity of the seed axioms that diverted research efforts into a wrong path.

            There are no restrictions on what kind of assumptions one can make to for exploration to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge. But there is a restriction on seed/core conviction that they must be supported by proof and evidence.

            The purpose of “scientific method” is to detect, measure and correct the path we have been traveling (in the past), but not the future exploration. We add a piece of new discovery to BoK only when it is backed by irrefutable poof.

            There is only just one right path (i.e. determined by objective reality) for hard sciences and many wrong paths. The purpose is to keep the progress close to the right path. A wrong assumption, sloppiness, bad luck or error could divert the research effort into a wrong path. If you have no mechanisms to detect or measure the error, we end up in a scientific crisis such as geocentric paradox.

            My contention is software committed such kind of error 50 years ago, so end up in the geocentric paradox of software engineering. Exposing the error transforms computer science into hard sciences, as exposing the error at the core of geocentric paradox transformed basic sciences in to real sciences.

            I am a great admirer of Galileo because he experienced this pain of exposing the error first hand. His quotes gives us deeper insights into his wisdom: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/Galileo-quotes.html such as, “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”

            We need to have a mechanism to measure and validate degree of objectiveness of our knowledge. Without a means of measuring or correcting our knowledge, we have no way of knowing, if we are going in right path or wrong path. My problem with software researchers is: Many of them feel that it is heresy or even repugnant to question the validity of the errors committed 50 years ago, which are at the foundation to existing CBSD paradox. Isn’t it hard to believe that this kind of thing could happen in the 21st century?

Best Regards,

Raju

Thesis Description & summary of one of the biggest mistakes researc...

Dear Dr. Storage,

            I read all the three articles (yours and the two referred in your article). The important thing missing is: the hard sciences deal with objective reality and soft sciences deal with subjective things. Please kindly refer to “Irrefutable Proof: Computer Science is a Pseudo Science” stating in page 5 to 7 at:   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

            Sir, scientific method imposes no method for exploration, but provides proven mechanisms to test and validate the theories. If one can’t measure the error, one can’t know if he is going closer to the Truth or further from the Truth. Also we must keep in mind the wisdom of great scientists such as Newton, who said: “The best and safest way of philosophizing seems to be, first to enquire diligently into the properties of things and to establish those properties by experiments and then to proceed slowly to hypotheses for the explanation of them. For hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them; unless so far as they may furnish experiments.”

            Furthermore, there may be room for improvement for “Scientific Method”. There is always room for improving almost every thing. We can’t throwaway because minor perceived imperfections. If that is the case, almost nothing in this world is perfect.

            In my perception, scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute Truth, which not necessarily implies just discovering absolute Truth, but also includes getting closer and closer to absolute Truth (e.g. immutable objective reality). The purpose of the “scientific method” is helping us device objective mechanisms and processes to get closer and closer to the Truth.

            In my perception, the purpose of “scientific method” also includes validating the knowledge and gain insights in to our knowledge, because most knowledge is context sensitive. There are exceptions as explained above. The “scientific method” have been evolving to prevent mistakes rather than to help explore frontiers of unexplored scientific frontiers.

            Of course, my contention of this question is, software researchers deliberately committing the known and proven kinds of mistakes. They have been deliberately violating proven scientific methods that can prevent such mistakes. They started on a wrong path 50 years ago and progressing in a wrong way by ignoring even common science, logic or reasoning.

Best Regards,

Raju

Article Software researchers practising bad science by relying on un...

Dear Dr. Storage,

            The “Scientific Method” was formalized in the 17th century based of painful experiences and valuable lessons and insights learned during the period of scientific revolution. It has been evolving ever since, as and when mankind finds exceptions and outliers.

            We can’t blame “Scientific Method”, if some one knowingly withholds evidence or without addressing known counter-evidence. If someone does it intentionally, it is fraud (but not a problem of the “Scientific Method”).            How anyone could blame the “Scientific Method”, if someone intentionally violates the “Scientific Method”.

              It is the duty of other scientists (i.e. peers) to expose such fraud or sloppiness. That’s what I have been doing for years – Trying to expose sloppiness or even fraud.

           Dr. Storage, in such cases, the biggest challenge is not discovering the Truth, but exposing an error at the root of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Discovering the Truth is almost trivial task, one the error is known.

            For example, in software no one is willing to accept the flawed myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox by investigating all the evidence. Exposing this error puts scientific effort in right path, which quickly leads to the Truth.

              Likewise, the biggest problem in 16th century was, flawed belief “the Earth is static”. No one would like to explore any other possibility. They used many excuses such as “if the Earth is moving at such huge speed, how could Moon following”. Galileo’s greatest contribution is the discoveries of Galileo’s moons. Also don’t forget Galileo’s famous statement “And yet it moves”.

            Many experts fixated on, who discovered that the Sun is at the center. Any systematic investigation quickly leads to the Truth, once the error is exposed. When the error was known, hundreds of philosophers would look at the evidence and I am sure more than 10% of them would pursue right path (because there only 9 planets): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271271593_Who_discovered_that_the_Earth_was_static_at_the_center_Who_validated_the_discovery_that_was_considered_inalienable_truth

           For example, I can assure you, mankind experience unprecedented software engineering revolution within months, if research community accepts the untested myth at the root of software engineering paradox. Based on my experience, exposing the error is 100% times more complex than discovering the reality (i.e. real software components and CBD) – It is a trivial task, if researchers start looking for answers.

            If I am successful, my contribution is not the 6 US patents I secured on real-software-components and real CBSD (which are rooted in my discovery of nature and properties of components and CBD), but exposing the error at the root of the software engineering paradox.

        I am sure, hundreds of scientists would discover the Truth within months, even if my discoveries were equivalent the incomplete theories of Galileo or Copernicus. The Truth is in the plain sight in the right path, when research efforts are put on the right path. The question is who gets there first. 

Best Regards,

Raju

Article Who discovered that the Earth was static at the center? Who ...

Dear Sirs: I have many thoughts regarding this question, mostly concerning historical facets, the great and difficult inertia possessed to past taken paths, the wish/need to establish science in the wake of the unknown and unanswerable. Below I will tabulate some observations:

1) Einsteins constant velocity of light entails a world of mathematically/topologically closed volume and hence an "edge" of the world, entail serious thermodynamic problems in accounting for the existence of light. He was well aware of the incompleteness of his world and took issue with his colleauges who none-the-less continued on their own path despite his objections-the thoughts of his colleagues mostly dominate modern interpretation and behavior.

2)The programming steps in cell phones are said impossible to trace by a single mind-they are the product of engineers of different nationalities and native languages and are said to possess redundant codes that address operations. This is very similar to what is known to the AIDES virus function; the proteins and genes involved are normal cell components that have come to address systems differently causing the AIDES pathology. The parallel is striking, yet as easily as it is not construed by the publishers of the LA time that selling the front page of a Sunday issue for movie advertisement would change the face of all media, it is not ready to the reasoning of engineers, the absolute and assured connection between the concepts incorporated into tool construction and those given life in thinking and behavior and an associated blindness to self defeating behaviors, though contemporary activities seems to involve a drunken gamblers like, greedy doing possessed most prominately to decision makers that are a minority of the whole, riding on science that is incomplete.

3) the assumption in physics of a "multiverse" in order to accommodate explanation is obviously untestable.

4) A world of forgers is emerging, including many physicists claiming, based on very complex interpretation that the world itself is a computer simulation. The contradiction suggested above in a question answer, 0=1, becomes 3 X 10^8 = 1 (=0, answering the paradox of an immaculate conception- e.g. 3 X 10^8 went from (very very very small part of someplace to todays universe in a very very very quick manner.

5) one might not be a scientist (police investigator would do) to suggest that addiction, physical/psychological suffering, and the sun/sunlight or space radiation are primary features. It might actually be the case the planents/sun/solar system are at the center of the influencing parts of the world, form the limits of what is witnessible and measureable, e.g. the cosmic ray background and big bang describe but a section of a space that contains the earth. We are then back to pre-Copernican cosmology that in a sense is not false. In this view all of our science entails physical specifics and has no justification for proof seeking extension concerning universals to establish a grand view. A second police investigator, thinking about 'concepts' for explanation might focus upon the "black hole" that has no event horizon, no findable or knowable internal physical details, to suit criteria for a container of 'concepts'.

It seems to me that contradictions such as 0=1 always points to intersections or borders, setting where beliefs, views and behavior are related to forces, whether social or physical, that existed from the time and setting in which they were born. Physically confining such distinct emergences to a common space (as described above for cell phone software) may entail a substantial cognitive-social influence, or entail a great deal of force, warp drives as in Star Trek, but one cannot avoid to question concerning taken paths, 'concepts' and 'blackholes', destinations that lack event horizons and physical specifics.

If interested I am enclosing "What in the World is Universe?: A prime example".

mmm

Article WHAT IN THE WORLD IS UNIVERSE? : A PRIME EXAMPLE

Dear Mr. Krish,

            The biggest problem in case of scientific crisis is exposing the error (i.e. unproven myth “the Earth is static”) at the root of the geocentric paradox. The unproven axiom (i.e. “the Earth is static”) diverted scientific progress into a wrong path, which altered perception of reality so much so, the Truth was perceived to Heresy or repugnant.

            Although, there is enough evidence exists by 17th century, research community prosecuted Galileo for saying that the Earth is not static. Discovering the Truth was not hard, once all the evidence is investigated with open mind. The truth could have been discovered in normal course of investigation, even if the truth were to be “Saturn is at the center” – By just exploring each possibility by plotting the planarity positions by putting each planet.

            If you are me wanted to discover the Truth with open mind, what would we do?  If I think, Saturn is at the center, I try to collect as much evidence as possible and try to plot planetary paths and try to predict future locations to validate my prediction.  

            Remarkable similar kind of problem repeated in the computer science. Software researchers defined 50 years ago that CBD is building software by assembling reusable (or COTS – Commercially off the Shelf) components, as hardware engineers build computers by assembling COTS from 3td party component vendors. Also few researchers even called them Software-ICs.  – This has no basic in reality/fact, but software researches have been perusing this wrong path for past 50 years.

            Since they have been perusing a wrong path for over 50 years, it altered perception of reality so much so, the Truth was perceived to Heresy or repugnant. This error may have cost a trillion dollars during past 25 years and would cost trillions more, if the error is not exposed. The reality of CBD is explained at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design. I accomplished this goal many years ago and trying to expose the error. My CBSD is not correct, the Truth can be discovered by any one by investigating all the evidence.

            It was impossible to discover the Truth by prosecuting any one, who questioned the validity of flawed seed axioms (i.e. the Earth is static). I have been enduring insults, personal attacks and humiliation for requesting proof for flawed concepts such as “reusable software parts are components, and CBSD is using such fake components”. The Truth can be discovered within couple of weeks, if the can be exposed.

The biggest problem is admitting or acknowledging the error. The “scientific method” requires investigating all the evidence with open mind and going wherever facts lead us, without being influenced by prejudice and preconceived notions.

Quotes by Arthur Schopenhauer (Great 19th Century German Philosopher)

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”

            I didn’t think, they are true even in 21st century. But based on firsthand experience, they are true even in 21st century.  No software experts can support their opinion, except by saying every one else things reusable software parts are components. It is not science. Science needs objective proof.

            In an open scientific debate, one must back each fact by proof and evidence. I can back each of my invention by irrefutable proof and evidence. Also I can prove existing concepts are flawed by using irrefutable proof and evidence. I am requesting for an opportunity to demonstrate proof, but no one is willing to give me an opportunity. I put all the evidence openly in my web sites as well as tools for building real CBD applications.

                      Compared to problems such as “Einstein's constant velocity of light”, the problem we in software trying to solve is elementary school math.

Best Regards,

Raju

Article What is true essence of Component Based Design?

Dear Friends,

            The path taken by assuming that (“the Earth is static”) was a wrong path. The path taken by assuming that (“the Sun is at the center”) was a right path. The theory (“the Sun is at the center”) is reality and Truth. Once the error is exposed, it opened up few paths to explore (e.g. by putting each planet at the center).

            Unfortunately research community persecuted anyone questioned the validity or requested for proof for dogmatic myth “the Earth is static”. The greatest contribution of Galileo is risking his life for exposing this error (e.g. and yet it moves). He forced the research community to contort the Truth. Even though they won in the short term, he put the spotlight on the Truth so that the Truth can prevail eventually. Anyone saying Galileo made certain mistakes in the orbits of planets missing the whole point.

            The path taken 50 years ago by assuming that (“CBSD is using so called components, which are reusable”) was a wrong path. The right path for CBSD is implementing over 90% features and functionality in replaceable components – This is the irrefutable reality and Truth for CBD of physical products.

            Unfortunately research community today persecuting anyone questioned the validity or requested for proof for dogmatic myth (“CBSD is using so called components, which are reusable”). My goal is exposing this error, even if it requires enduring humiliation and ruining my career. My goal is to force research community to contort the Truth. Even though they may win in the short term, I want to put the spotlight on the Truth so that the Truth can prevail eventually.

            The thing really shocking to me is, even the respected software researches in the 21st century behaving no differently than the research community of 16th and early 17th century. Only thing different is, they can’t put me in jail or take legal action. I am hoping, they would take me to court, so that burden of proof will be on them. In fact, if I can afford, I can take the legal action for scandalous gross negligence or even fraud. If I take a legal action, burden of proof will be on me, which I can’t afford now (but hoping to earn or raise enough).

             I need to put the error under bright lights, so that, respected experts can’t ignore the reality and Truth. The biggest problem is, exposing the error. If the error is known, research community would be forced to look for right path and can discover the right path in no time. Today no one is willing to explore any other paths, since they feel it is heresy to even doubt the validity of exiting path.

           No one can recognize Truth, even if it hits their face. The Truth hit my face 15 years ago, and it took me 12 years of hard work to realize that it is the right path. Based on my discussions with many experts, few experts also encountered the Truth, but they have no time or patience. Not every one can quite their jobs and focus on such investigation for many years (as I did).

           I am not asking anyone to quite their jobs, but it is wrong to insult or humiliate any thing, just because it contradicts one's prejudice or preconceived notion. Yes, anyone is free to insult me and I am willing to give unconditional apology, if they can prove me wrong (or if I can't prove that the existing path is wrong, when they give me an opportunity - I never asked any one to believe me. I requested only for an opportunity).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

I think it is important to review the development of the philosophy of science over that past century and more. The primary realization was that science can never prove anything. One of the famous examples of this idea is the story of the biologist and the swans. He was from England or some other part of western Europe. He set out to characterize swans. Having grown up around places where swans were common he already had the strong impression that all swans are right. However, he required himself to check this "everybody knows" belief. Everywhere he went, he saw only white swans until he gained an opportunity to go to Australia. There, the first swan he saw was black.

That narrative is a simple way to explain that no matter how many times you check some statement that you believe to be true, the next check you make may turn up evidence that refutes your idea.

Newtonian physics was regarded as so well tested, had been found to be so reliable, that it certainly must be true. But then, figuratively speaking, scientists went to Australia. One such trip occurred when researchers began to explore velocities that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Nothing seems more intuitively obvious than the fact that if if an ocean liner is going west at five miles per hour and a man jobs from stern to bow at five miles per hour his speed relative to a stationary observer ahead of them on another ship will be ten miles per hour. But that isn't true when objects are moving at, e.g., 0.9 c. Originally, this was figured out without any way to test it in the laboratory, but the equations of special relativity are demonstrated to give reliable results all the time when people are working with GPS. The same kind of incomprehensible, comon-sense denying, paradoxical ideas are the bread and butter of quantum mechanics.  It's too complicated to go into here, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics.

Scientists have learned to speak in terms of models, or "useful fictions," which are two different ways of making it clear that human cognition imposes order and form on a sandstorm of sense data. Sometimes we do it rather poorly, as when we thought that Sol goes around Earth, other times we do it a  little better when we say that Earth rotates aroiund Sol. Still later we throw out the idea of circular orbits and conclude that the orbits must be ellipses. And then we still can't deal with the orbit of Mercury. Each idea we impose on nature got us a bit closer to a reliable narrative. 

I think you may have been thinking about situations wherein scientists have held on to statements that they believe have never been shown to be factually wrong. A good example is the way prions were discovered to be the cause of some diseases (mad cow disease, etc.). 

In 1982, Stanley Prusiner announced his research on prions. It seems never to be mentioned in public discussion of the matter some thirty years later, but when he first went public with his ideas he was roundly denounced by "authorities" in the field. Fifteen years later he won a Nobel Prize for his research, and his critics finally shut up. 

As for computer science, I have done quite a lot of programming in C, I have made a computer by using wire-wrapping and sockets for integrated circuits, as well as assembling two "Big Board" computers and (more importantly) learning how to trouble-shoot them when a chip went bad somewhere. So I'm not entirely ignorant of programming (starting with machine language and working up) or of the complex circuits that operate based on the programmed instructions provided to them. However, I have seen very little that looks like science to me. Of course the components are designed by people with a knowledge of the quantum mechanical interactions involved, but they do not set out to break new ground in quantum mechanics. Most of what goes on with regard to programming and operating a computer seems to me to be deductive. 

Can you provide an example to elucidate how someone makes a hypothesis, figures out how to test it in the real world, and then establishes through experiment (through contriving and running a computer program that according to the hypothesis should deliver a certain result? 

Maybe that is too far away from what you are trying to convince your readers of. In that case, please try to come up with a real-world example or even a more theoretical example that will show everybody what kind of propositions you propose to make acceptable to reasonable people working with computers.

Dear Mr. Patrick,

            I heard the black swan theory 100 times. It has no relevance, in this case. Please kindly understand my arguments and reasoning. In hard science, we consider irrefutable Truths. They are proven to be irrefutable Truths. If they are wrong, most of the knowledge would become useless. I discussed couple of them before and let me repeat, such as (1) the Sun is at the center of our planetary systems and the planets move around the Sun, and (2) there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass and separated by a distance, where (2.a) the force of attraction decreases, if the distance is increased and (2.b) the force of attraction increases, if the masses are increased.

            Vast portion of our knowledge would become invalid, if the about scientific facts are fundamentally flawed. For example, vast portion of our knowledge understanding about the reality became invalid, when then so called self-evident Truth (the Earth is static) is proven to be flawed.

             The scientific facts above are very foundation to our vast scientific knowledge. The vast scientific knowledge is the very foundation to the technological progress we are experiencing today. No invention could work, if the scientific foundation is flawed. The working inventions are testament to the validity of the scientific knowledge (unless of course, with the exception that we are in a matrix or super deceiver playing greatest deception on us).

            The example you quoted is extreme cases. Here in software, researchers have been refusing to know obvious truth or investigate evidence. Let me give an analogy, they first saw a black-swan and concluded that all swans are black, even though 99% swans are white. They are insisting, only large reusable parts are components. But reality is over 90% of larges components are not reusable nor standardized (the large components are custom designed to satisfy unique needs of target product model).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

            Thank you for your explanation. My main concern is putting the software engineering research on the right path. I am sure software engineering was diverted into a wrong path nearly 50 years ago, by defining or stated goal of “CBSD is building software by assembling reusable (e.g. COTS – Commercially off the shelf) components, as hardware engineers build computers by assembling COTS from third party component venders."

This is in clear contradiction to the reality of CBD of physical products.

            I am not saying reuse is bad. In fact, reuse increased productivity many folds so far. But this blinded the true essence of the CBD of physical components. The CBD is equally powerful and useful. So it is the time, we must explore that path.

            So the path we must ALSO pursue is: Implementing over 90% features and functionality in optimal sized replaceable components classes (RCCs). Each RCC can be designed and tested individually free from spaghetti code. Each replaceable component must require just about 3 lines of code to assemble, disassemble or re-assemble any time in the future (i.e. through out the evolutionary life of the application). That is, each RCC is free from spaghetti code and since over 90% of the application code is implemented in such RCCs, over 90% of the application code would be free from such spaghetti code.

            I have taken this path and can prove that this goal can be accomplished. I clearly documented how it can be accomplished. But I am sure others can invent better methods, if they take this path.

            That is the reason, I frequently use the analogy (1) the researchers took a wrong path by assuming that “the Earth is static”, and (2) exposing this error (“the Earth is static”) forced the research community to investigate all the evidence to find right path. Of course, there may be few miss-steps by Copernicus and Galileo (by assuming circular orbits), but put the research efforts on the right path, which allowed other researchers to get closer and closer to the Truth.

            Likewise, it is impossible to make any progress in the geocentric paradigm of software engineering (i.e. in the wrong path). By starting the journey on the right path would help researchers to move closer and closer to the Truth. I hope, my descriptions of components and concepts are close enough to the Truth, and I hope to get even closer. But only time would tell how far away I am from the Truth.

              Even though I don’t know how far away I am from the Truth, I am absolutely sure that I am on the right path. And software crisis and many other outstanding problems can’t be solved until software researchers start their journey in the right path. I hope, this explains my perception of difference between path and knowledge (or discovery, which may not be absolute Truth, but closer to the Truth).

              We might never discovery the absolute Truth, but our knowledge can get closer and closer to the absolute Truth. Any discovery that takes our knowledge closer to the Truth is also progress (e.g. by explaining things that can’t be explained before) 

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

            Kindly keep in mind, one can get closer and closer to the Truth only when research effort is put in the right path. But if research effort is invested on wrong path, it would not only be wasted but also alters our perception of reality, which makes it harder and harder to expose the error. This was exactly what happened with the geocentric paradox. This is exactly what is happening today in the context of real-CBD for software.

            I strongly believe, software researchers must use “scientific method” to gain insights and BoK (Body of Knowledge) about the nature and essence of the CBD of physical products and nature and essential properties of physical functional components, where the essential properties are set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world.

            This knowledge would be valuable to solve software crisis. For example, if the essential properties are {S, R}, no physical part can be a component without having the essential properties {S, R}. If one is expert on elephants wouldn’t call any other kind of animal (e.g. the pigs) a kind of an elephant. Likewise, none of us call highly reusable and standardized ingredient parts (e.g. steel, metals, alloys, plastic, cement or silicon wafers) as a kind of components.

             The components are special kind of parts that can be disassembled and re-assembled. Most products are built by assembling such components, where each component is often designed and tested individually (e.g. created by using ingredient parts and/or other sub-components).

          This kind of BoK would guide us in the right path for inventing real-software-component for achieving real-CBD, which eliminates spaghetti code. I know for fact, this kind of transformation can be accomplished within few months, if not few weeks. If the error at the root of wrong path is exposed, I am sure, worldwide adoption of real COP (Component Oriented Programming) can be achieved within couple of years.

           I am able to train even junior java programmers within months in real COP in our startup company pioneer-soft.com. The biggest problem is exposing the error for guiding the research effort into the right path. I am sure, I can provide irrefutable proof within a week in an intense training session. Otherwise also they can gain basic knowledge within months by investigating evidence and examples. Once research effort is in right path, the facts are on the plain sight – it is just matter of time, we get closer and closer to Truth. But it is impossible to get closer to Truth, when research efforts are in wrong path (and likely going further and further away from the Truth, making it harder and harder).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

It appears that this site does not make it possible to reply to a comment on a criticism that I made. Is the intent to shut off objections to OP's essay?

Dear Partrick,

            I am not aware of any such censorship to freedom of expression. You are free to present your objections. I only request you to support your objections by evidence and facts.

            I supported all my statements by objective facts and irrefutable evidence. Any objections and responses would be productive, if each side supports it by clear evidence. I believe I am doing that and if any evidence or explanation is not sufficient, I am more than happy to clarify.

            You can also respond to my post at my blog at: http://real-software-components.blogspot.in/2016/11/isnt-it-scandal-if-not-fraud-if.html. But kindly back any criticism by evidence.

            Each and every fact I presented is backed by our inventions of real-software-components and first ever GUI technologies that can build real-software-components for achieving real-CBD. Anyone can freely download our GUI-API from pioneer-soft.com to create real-software-components for COP. This RG account and my website real-software-components.com along with my granted US patents (7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177) openly privide all the evidence.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Raju,

I was not referring to you, but to the very limited structure of ResearchGate. Too bad whoever runs it does not have a better website design staff.

Dogmatic statements such as your, "I heard the black swan theory 100 times. It has no relevance, in this case. Please kindly understand my arguments and reasoning. In hard science, we consider irrefutable Truths," leave me with no further desire to discuss things with you. If you are willing to challenge your idea of irrefutable Truths, you could start by studying The Historical Development of Quantum Theory by Jagdish Mehra and Helmut Rechenberg.

Newtonian physics was considered "hard science" and "irrefutable Truth" by reputable scientists until they hit things like the ultraviolet crisis. Then it wasn't irrefutable truth any longer. The same kind of thing happened with the idea that transmittable diseases could only be caused by viruses and microbes. Some members of the scientific community savaged the discoverer of the prions, saying, essentially, tht it was impossible that this so-called scientist could be right about mis-folded proteins. They savaged him for a time and then he won the Nobel Prize for his discovery. Then most people forgot how demeaning the enemies of this new knowledge had been. But don't believe me. 

Raju,

I’d like to expand upon Patrick’s point and take it in a slightly different direction and do so without being unsympathetic to what irks you so much.

That’s why I start by saying that I quite understand that what is at stake for you in the question you ask is a difference with colleagues in your very specific domain.

I’m also willing to accept that you may have legitimate grounds for feeling aggrieved by the deafness of your colleagues to your views and the way you defend them and to the extent that you deserve the benefit of the doubt I wish you luck in your battle.

However, I am also deeply disturbed by a couple of implications of the view you so single-mindedly and energetically go on and on about.

The root of the problem as I see it is the use you make of certain terms, in particular “BoK” and “the scientific method”.

If you were using these terms strictly as they pertain to your specific field of concern I wouldn’t say anything.

But you are not doing that.

You are speaking of “BoK” as knowledge of ANY kind and saying that BoK cannot be added to or requalified except if it is generated by using the “scientific method” on the grounds that this method is the sole legitimate way of organising knowledge.

Epistemologically speaking this is extraordinarily naïve.

Have you ever thought deconstructively about this idea of what counts as legitimate knowledge?

Don’t you realise that the “scientific method” is the product of a very specific “discursive formation” which reflects a host of culturally conditioned a-prioris, prejudices, punctum caecum and limitations.

Don’t you see how it creates a form of ignorance by failing to acknowledge as knowledge anything that has not been produced by the scientific method?

I recommend you think about this.

I also recommend that you make a clear distinction between the very broad issue of BoK and the scientific method on one hand, and on the other, respecting the recognised rules of discussion between professionals in your very specific area of endeavour.

Fionn Bennett

Dear Dr. Bennett,

            Most of discussion is in the context of existing state of software and computer science. But there are contain absolute Truths that are very roots/seed for our BoK (Body of Knowledge). The seed for the BoK existed in 16th century was the belief that “the Earth is static”. The whole BoK ended up flawed and proven to be illusion, when the belief was proven to be wrong.

            Likewise, many absolute Truths that are very roots/seed for our existing BoK, such as (i) there exists a force attraction between any two bodies having mass, (ii) “the Sun but not the Earth is at the centre”. A large chunk of our existing BoK would end up invalid (i.e. illusions just like epicycles or retrograde motions).

            Also I said scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth, which not necessarily imply just discovering absolute Truths alone, but getting closer and closer to absolute Truth. One can get closer and closer to the absolute Truth by taking the right path. The seed belief “the Earth is static” diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The objective reality/Truth, the Sun is at the centre put the research efforts into the right path.

            I can’t imagine, what could happen, if the belief “the Sun is at the centre” is equally flawed as “the Earth is static”. Only logical explanation could be, we are being deceived by super deceiver (i.e. the God) or we must be in matrix (as in the movie). The same thing can be said, if many seed beliefs such as: there exists a force attraction between any two bodies having mass.

            I agreed that, vast knowledge in the BoK is filled with concepts, empirical results and theories are not absolute Truths but presumed to be facts closest to the absolute Truth (depending on the context and/or relative to a point of view). For example, a given fact or theory may be closest to the absolute Truth in certain context and/or in a certain point of view, while another competing fact or theory may be closest to the absolute Truth in another context and/or in another point of view.

              The purpose of the “scientific method” is to getting closer and closer to the absolute Truth. The “scientific method” has been evolving and continue to evolve as and when it fails to address certain outlier cases. I consider that the “scientific method” is the constitution governing our conduct in scientific exploration, which also must be evolved to be relevant and useful. If there is any deficiency, it is our collective duty to build awareness to address the deficiency. I hope, you understand my perspective.

             Of course, my grievance is not about petty things but the seed belief at the very root of software engineering, which is of the magnitude equivalent to the “the Earth is static”. Also it is unbelievable that reaction of software researchers in the 21st century reacting no differently to the Truth (i.e. objective reality) than the fanatics in the dark ages.

        They are defending the myths (i.e. about components and CBD) no differently than the fanatics defence of myth (the Earth is static), for example, when I asked for proof to support the myth or asked for an opportunity for presenting evidence to expose the error. Most of them don't realize that I have been testing my facts for 12 years, but assume I am proposing it recklessly by dreaming up yesterday night. Saying “the Sun is at the centre” offended common sense and deeply entrenched wisdom. It appeared to be arrogant and disrespectful to question the dogma.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Dear Dr. Bennett,

Let me add this: Epistemology plays an important role to understanding the validity of the knowledge in a given context and/or point of view. For example, lights wave/particle duality. I feel, “scientific method” adopt epistemology methods and as a tool for better understanding our knowledge, Epistemology is a tool for understanding the knowledge but not a tool for exploring scientific forfeiters for gaining new knowledge for expanding the boundaries of our knowledge. For example, physics uses mathematics as a tool for quantifying the knowledge. Each tool is designed to and have proven track record for doing certain things. My argument is computer science must use “scientific method” to gain certain kind of knowledge essential for solving certain unsolved problems: 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

Best Regards,

Raju 

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

Dear Mr. Patrick,

            Your argument and logic is wrong. Just because certain group of scientists proven to be wrong: Newtonian physics was considered "hard science" and "irrefutable Truth" by reputable scientists until they hit things like the ultraviolet crisis. 

            Patrick, I never said all the knowledge is absolute Truth. It is a journey to get closer and closer to absolute Truth. But there are certain broader facts that are absolute truths. Scientists must know them, because such absolute truths are starting points for right path leading to the absolute Truth. If we make an error in such broader facts, we end up in a wrong path.

            For example, the whole research of hard sciences work on the promise that: The nature and properties of physical beings (e.g. electrons, light, viruses or bacteria) is immutable objective reality. The purpose of scientific research is to discover the objective reality – A journey to getting closer and closer to objective reality.

            One of the absolute Truths at the very root of the Newtonian mechanics is “there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass”. This is still an absolute Truth. Of course, the measures defined by Newtonian mechanics are huge step in the right direction and very close to the absolute Truth. I hope you understand the journey and crossroads, where you need to take right path for getting closer and closer to the Truth.

            My argument is: The nature and properties of physical beings (e.g. including components) is objective reality. Software researcher diverted into a wrong path by ignoring this reality. The existing definitions and concepts for nature and properties of software components and CBSD is in clear contradiction to the objective reality and fundamentally flawed, no different from the concepts such as epicycles of geocentric paradox is fundamentally flawed.

            The assumption of “the Earth is static” is fundamentally flawed (i.e. clear contradiction to the objective reality) Likewise, the myths at the root of exiting CBSD were never tested and fundamentally flawed (i.e. clear contradiction to the objective reality).

     There is an objective reality. As long as we follow “scientific method”, discoveries that are closest to the objective reality prevail sooner or later. That was exactly what must have happened in case of “discoverer of the prions”. As long as the scientific progress is put in right path (by using scientific method), all the errors would be detected or adjusted, as explained here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308678137_Isn%27t_it_a_fraud_if_any_scientific_or_engineering_discipline_doesn%27t_have_any_methods_to_validate_or_correct_beliefs_theories_or_hypothesis

Best Regards,

Raju

Research Proposal Isn't it a fraud, if any scientific or engineering disciplin...

Dear Mr. Patrick,

            Our body of knowledge for hard sciences filled with millions of absolute Truths. To name a couple of examples (i) Oxygen  atoms contain only 8 protons at the nucleolus – Can you find an oxygen atom without 8 protons?, and (ii) let me tell an absolute Truth about swans- All live swans must have an heart – Can you find a live swan without a Heart?. You can see, this way it is not hard to list millions of absolute Truths.

            Even the discovery that “the Sun is at the center” was considered as a fiction and subjective. Let me quote from wiki pages: “In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared Heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture". The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentric-model as a mathematical fiction.”

            It is not subjective to Kepler and Galileo. Kepler’s laws prove that it is objective reality to Kepler. It makes little difference, if white swan theory is wrong. It makes a huge difference, if one can find a live swan without a Heart. We have to go back and rethink every thing again. Please re-call Descartes famous quote “I think, therefore I am”.

            Patrick, I meant no disrespect. Just like to clarify that “Black swan theory is not applicable” and it only trivializes and diverts serious debate and scientific exploration. For example, if you can prove that nature and properties of physical things are not objective reality (by finding an exception), it shakes the very foundation of our scientific knowledge.

         The researchers of hard sciences have been working under the “assumption and/or axiom” that nature and properties of physical things are objective reality and trying to get closer and closer to the absolute truths about the objective reality. For example, the objective for theories such as string theory and big bang theory are to gain knowledge and facts to get closer and closer to the absolute truths about the objective reality. How can finding a black swan prove that such “assumption and/or axiom” might be wrong?

Best Regards,

Raju

Pointless to continue. Go ahead and disappear this comment too.

Dear Mr. Patrick,

            The computer science and software engineering is rooted in assumptions and definitions nature and properties (e.g. of components and CBD) without any basic in reality and fact (in fact contradiction to the objective reality).

              I proposed the nature and property of the physical components and the nature and true essence of CBD are objective reality and it is possible to discover them (or at least certain facts that are very close to the objective reality).

           Knowing the fact is like discovering that “the Sun is at the center” contradicted the very foundation of the knowledge years ago, when world believed “the Earth is static”. The whole body of knowledge was depended on that assumption “the Earth is static”.

           How can discovery of black swan invalidates another theory “all living swans must have heart”. The software researchers are foolishly using “black swan” example to justify their scandalous incompliancy (if not fraud): Their assumptions and definitions nature and properties (e.g. of components and CBD) without any basic in reality and fact (in fact contradiction to the objective reality).

              Today the assumptions and definitions nature and properties (that are clearly in contradiction to the objective reality) – You can ask any software expert to validate these facts. They say it is true, but use excuse that software is not real-science or software is unique/different. None of them even know the objective reality about components/CBD, and refusing to know the objective reality by using excuses such as “black swan”.

           Up to 500 years ago, saying “the Earth is not static (e.g. moving around another planet)” was equivalent to saying, the swans have no hearts – An heresy. Today software researchers perceive my discovery of facts about the objective reality of components and CBD are repugnant and heresy (because it contradicts their dogmatic myths).

        Mr. Patrick, in your political sciences, your reality is subjective where "white swan" theory may be acceptable. But in hard sciences  "white swan" theory derogatively trivializes and dilutes serious facts and debate about the immutable objective reality.

P.S: Unfortunately even respected researchers quote Sir. Karl Popper out of context. I am sure, he never said in that context of hard sciences. If a doctor (including veterinary doctor) finds a large living animal or human without Heart, we have to go back and re-evaluate whole of our knowledge about living things. But finding a blue color man changes little (even though today there are no known blue man in the Earth). Likewise, if my discoveries are right - the whole of software engineering must be re-evaluated leading to unprecedented software engineering revolution.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

            Black Swan theory is misused and used out of context, which only diverts the serious debate about objective reality. We don’t have any reason why swans can’t be black. Hence it makes no difference, if a black swan is discovered. It may be news for the people, who concluded that all swans are white. I am sure, they can’t provide any scientific reason why all swans must be white.

            On the other hand, our knowledge is rooted in certain absolute truths such as all large living things including swans have heart. Hence if a live swan were to be discovered without a heart, it shakes the very foundations of our knowledge about the anatomy of living things.

The research community have to start with “I think, therefore I am” as quoted by Rene Descartes that illustrated the paradigm-shift, when research community realized that “the Earth is not static”: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Isnt_it_scandal_if_not_fraud_if_scientists_continue_to_rely_on_flawed_myths_which_blatantly_violate_objective_reality_by_ignoring_clear_warnings

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri