Dear Friends,
The scientific method evolved for centuries and comprises of comprehensive mechanisms for testing, validation or correction of any theory, axiomatic assumption/belief or hypothesis. The researchers of sciences use scientific method for acquiring and accumulating objective Bok (Body of Knowledge) for each discipline/field, where the scientific method is elaborately explained in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method comprises of powerful mechanisms for validation and correction such as falsifiability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. Such mechanisms for correction or validation are extremely valuable for gaining deeper and deeper insights and wisdom about the ultimate objective reality. Any accepted theory can be falsified anytime, if and when new evidence is discovered. This kind of corrective mechanisms are essential part of the scientific method.
There is competition between researchers, relentless efforts to advance each of the (scientific or engineering) disciplines, and using/having mechanisms for validation, whose test every theory must withstand or fail (not only to be accepted into the BoK but also survive, if and when a potential anomaly is discovered). This kind of mechanisms would expose accepted theories or published conclusions that are result of sloppiness, bad luck and even fraud; and swept away by the advances of the field. In fact, rigorous mechanisms for validation or correction are extremely valuable and indispensable integral part, because researchers gain more wisdom and deeper insights from systematic investigation, causes for failures and exposing such flawed theories.
The researchers of mathematics have comprehensive mechanisms for testing, validation or correction of any theory or assumption (or hypothesis). For example, researchers of mathematics (or logic) rely on set of axioms to build axiomatic systems. If there is an error in any of the axioms, the research results lead to contradictions or inconsistencies. The axioms are corrected or replaced to eliminate contradictions or inconsistencies. Even of the contradictions may not detect the flawed axiom, the contradictions are a clear indication of a flaw in one or more of the axioms (or theories or hypothesis).
Mathematical methods (or logic) have in-built mechanisms for detecting flawed axiomatic assumptions, theories or hypothesis. For example, if an axiom is flawed, applying series of steps (that are strictly in complacence with established mathematical methods) by relying on such flawed axiom sooner or later leads to glaring contradiction or unacceptable inconsistence (e.g. such as 0 = 1). The flawed axiom can be detected by retracing the steps (by making sure each step is correct and strictly in complacence with established mathematical methods), which certainly leads to the source of the contradiction or inconsistence. This knowledge and insights are used to make necessary corrections or discord the flawed axiom.
Computer science can never be a real science and software engineering can never be a real engineering, without mechanisms for correction or validation. How do we know the validity of each of the accepted theories or published conclusions (e.g. definitions for components, CBD or neural networks) in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for computers science and/or software engineering? If they are flawed (e.g. having many anomalies) how can we correct them?
Unfortunately, researchers of computer science (software) made no effort to device such corrective mechanisms, even in cases where such corrective mechanisms are readily available. My years of effort to propose objective facts and mechanisms for correction or validation have been not only ignored but also I have been snubbed and insulted. Each and every anomaly or contradiction is snubbed by using baseless or unsubstantiated excuses that software is different/unique.
Isn't fraud, if mechanisms for correction or validation are ignored even when such mechanisms for correction or validation are available (or proposed)? For example, no error (e.g. in axiom, theory or hypothesis) can ever be detected, if there are no mechanisms for correction or validation (e.g. refuse to use such mechanisms, even when available or clear proof is provided). If any discipline that is not using (by choice/ignorance or it is impossible to use) scientific methods, it is a Pseudoscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Many soft sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) try to use scientific methods, even if it is not possible to strictly conform to the scientific rigor. It may be impossible to strictly follow methods for validation in certain disciplines. Isn't it fraud, if researchers deliberately refuse to use any methods for validation, even such methods are available (e.g. proposed) and possible to gain valuable knowledge for substantial advancement of the discipline?
The difference between soft-sciences and hard-sciences is, the former deals with subjective reality, while the later deals with objective reality – But both try to use scientific methods to their best of their ability. But researchers of a pseudoscience or fake science refuse to use (or deliberately ignore) any corrective mechanism, even when such mechanisms are available (or demonstrated). This makes computer science (software) a fake science (engineering). Isn’t it fraud?
Software researchers invested nearly 50 years of efforts on CBSD by relying on untested definitions for software components. If the definitions are wrong, their research effort has been progressing in wrong path and most of this effort could only create retrograde motions and epicycles of software engineering. For example, the nature and true essence of CBD for physical products is objective reality (without any room for doubt or ambiguity). The essential properties for physical components is objective reality. The knowledge of such objective facts provide irrefutable methods or mechanism for validation or correction. Using such methods for validation exposes root cause for infamous software crisis, which can be solved by eliminating the causes using methods for correction.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Call it "scientific fraud", call it "PhD thesis", call it whatever you like ... :)
Or just call it worthless...
These days, a lot of publications are based on "simulation only" - with no "real implementation proof". There are a lot of publications where I can detect methodical errors by just fast-reading the article.
P.S.: I haven't really read all your stuff about CBSD/CBD (too many words).
But I know aleady that some sort of "holy war" is taking place on these fields. Don't take the paradigms too ernest: most paradigms about software are somewhat restricted to certain fields of application. The number of generally valid paradigms is by no way as high as the number of paradigms published.
Dear Mr. Dreher,
You said:
My passion is development and invention. Walking ways nobody walked before, doing 'things' differently
Let me show you a righteous way: I know there kinds of engineering paradigms (i) civil engineering paradigm for designing and constructing large buildings or skyscrapers, (ii) mechanical engineering paradigm for designing and building large products such as cars, airplanes and machinery or equipment for factories, and (iii) electronic engineering paradigm for building products such as computers, cell-phones or TVs etc.
Do you know, what is the fundamental difference between the first paradigm and the other 2 paradigms? The other two paradigms use very specific kind of parts that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled, where such specific kind of parts that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled are known as components.
Each of the products built using second paradigm is build by assembled the components, while each of the products built using third paradigm is build by plugging-in the components, for example, into a PCB (Printer Circuit Board) that are referred to by names such as system-board, card or motherboard etc. The components used in third paradigm communicate or collaborate with each other using signals to exchange information.
The 3 major steps for 2nd and 3rd engineering paradigm in brief (1) partitioning any large product into self-contained modules known as components, (2) designing, building and testing each of the components individually, and (3) building the product by quickly assembling (or plugging-in in case of 3rd) all the components, once all the components are built and tested.
The objective of my research spanning over 16 years is to achieve software engineering paradigm that is equivalent to the third engineering paradigm. So far I secured 6 patents in the USA. About 3 patents for 1st step, 2 patents to fill gaps to accomplish 2nd step, and filed patents for automatically assembling components for 3rd step (without any need for manual coding).
Today software engineers are using most inefficient engineering paradigm that is analogous to civil engineering paradigm as per this wiki-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture (This paradigm don’t use components – parts that can be assembled and disassembled).
Only righteous way, we can achieve software engineering paradigm that is analogues to 2nd or 3rd paradigms is by defining: No part can be a component for CBE (Component Based Engineering), if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled.
P.S: Any inconvenient truth that challenge deeply entrenched conventional wisdom faces fierce resistance and hostilities (e.g. to suppress such inconvenient truth), but leads to a revolution, when larger research community forced to investigate evidence and find no other option but accept that its proof is accurate.
Let me give you a hint: In the context of CBE for products such as cars or computers, what is the sticking difference between kind of parts that are certainly components and other kinds of parts that are certainly not components?
Best Regards,
Raju
Please also see:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_many_scientists_have_hard_time_understanding_this_simple_rule_The_only_path_for_scientific_progress_is_through_series_of_objective_truths_facts
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_scientists_know_and_fulfil_unspoken_contract_or_moral_obligation_of_investigating_counter_evidence_for_eliminating_errors_to_uphold_Truth
Call it CB(S)E and you might get a patent on it.
Call it "modular software" and you won't. (This is a concept way older. And not less successful. Just somewhat "not the trend".)
And I object regarding mobile phones: these are (mostly) NOT assembled by plugging together already available components. It's just that the required components (as in the airplane example) are partitioned into several modules - due to space/"form factor" constraints.
If you experience some resistance vs. your great concepts/ideas/innovations, it might be due to the fact that it's like reinventing the tire - previously black, now e.g. blue and shiny. Not really new.
Don't hope for a revolution that will never happen on the sector of software engineering. What you may hope for is some kind of "evolution". But that only if you do not try to preach a new religion but try to guide the path of evolution.
It seems you're trying to sell your patents best. This way you might up seeing your dreams fulfilling once your patents have run out.
Good luck.
Dear Mr. Dreher,
You said: My passion is development and invention. Walking ways nobody walked before, doing 'things' differently
I gave the answer to see, if you are really know what it means walking ways nobody walked. You reply shows, you don’t know what is it meant by exploring ways nobody walked.
Mr. Dreher, I have been exploring a way no one in the world knows even existed for 18 years. I have small team testing every concept and creating missing pieces for achieving new software engineering paradigm having three steps (1) partitioning into components, (2) building the components individually, and (3) using CASE-tool for automatically assembling the components without manually writing even single line of communication code. Please see FIG-2 in attached PDF.
Do you know what is it meant by exploring a new path? For example, Mankind has been exploring heliocentric path since early 17th century, which no one in the world knows such path even existed until 16th century.
You have been living geocentric paradox of software engineering (as I had been until year 2000). So I know what geocentric paradox is. But we have been exploring new path since 18 years. You can’t even possible imagine where this path leads using your pre-connived notions and prejudice.
For example, I put lot of inform I gathered before year 2013 in this web-site: http://real-software-components.com/ such as: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html
For example, we pioneer-soft.com created first and only GUI (Graphical User Interface) technology in the world that is capable of creating software components that can be assembled and disassembled in year 2005-2006. Example for pluggable-components at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html
Recently we have filed patents for inventions for 3rd step – CASE-Tool for automation of assembling components/modules without ant need for manually creating communication code. Please refer to FIG-1 & FIG-2 in attached PDF.
It requires lot of patience and open mind to explore such new paths. I can’t possible explain 18 years of our work in one page reply. Let me conclude this by few quotes of a great German philosopher
Quotes by Arthur Schopenhauer
(Great 19th Century German Philosopher)
“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.”
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
“Thus, the task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what nobody yet has thought about that which everybody sees.”
1. Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody has thought.
2. Discovery (or Genius) is seeing what everyone else sees and thinking what no one else has thought.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Mr. Dreher,
The "three stages of truth" was valid in case of Heliocentric model. The prevailing dominant paradigm in 16th century had been evolving for 1800 years by relying on pre-paradigmatic phase beliefs that “The Earth is static at the centre”.
May be it would be helpful to know various phases for scientific progress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPsc55zsXA and optionally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOGZEZ96ynI.
The "three stages of truth" is valid in case of any dominant paradigm that is built by relying on flawed pre-science beliefs:
The basic science was in pre-science or pre-paradigmatic phase until 3rd century BC, before Ptolemaic model emerged as right path, at a time it was inconceivable to imagine that the Earth is moving 30 KM/sec (15 times the speed of a rifle bullet) around the Sun (while huge rock named the Moon is following the Earth moving at such an incredible speed) .
Software engineering paradigm has been evolving for past 50 years by relying 50 to 60 year old pre-science or pre-paradigmatic assumptions about components and CBE, when FORTRAN and assembly languages were dominant programming languages (at the time it was inconceivable of creating software by assembling pluggable components).
Somethings might appear to be inconceivable when a discipline was in its infancy, but it is wrong to conclude that it would be impossible for eternity (even million years from now).
Like Ptolemaic model, the NATO software engineering conferences in 1968 and 1969 defined basic assumptions as foundation for existing dominant engineering paradigm, which the path or foundation is rooted in “reuse” rather than “pluggability”.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science