Dear Friends,
History shows that many influential members of the research community actively instigated and clandestinely aided the prosecution and conviction of Galileo and others. I can't find any scientist who vocally opposed the prosecution by saying that they have moral obligation to uphold the Truth, if they can show sound evidence for proving the Truth. The other researches even refused to look at the evidence.
How can we blame Vatican alone when we can't find any vocal supporter for freedom to show evidence? I can't believe that Vatican had prosecuted them, if few researchers opposed the prosecution by saying if they have sound evidence, they have right to pursue and obligation to present evidence to uphold Truth. It is immoral to prosecute anyone for pursuing objective Truth (since objective Truth is divine).
Even if few members of community of philosophers or researchers don’t agree or refuse to look at evidence, they must take blame for instigating and aiding such prosecution. We doomed to repeat the same mistake again, if we fail to learn lessons from past mistakes by successfully deflecting the blame onto some else.
If you are a researcher, which one you should believe: Your sense, intellect and reasoning, or authority of books that are rooted in such fallacies? If Holy Scripture says all swans are white, would you advocate prosecuting someone for committing heresy, if he/she offers to show black swans to expose the fallacy?
If all the books in the world say dolphins lay eggs. Isn’t wrong to prosecute someone, when he tries to expose such fallacy by requesting for an opportunity to demonstrate sound evidence for proving that dolphins give birth to baby dolphins?
What is authentic: The objective reality that can be observed, or text books that has fallacies such as software parts that can be reusable in multiple products are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design or Engineering) of large products, where reusable parts for software are equivalent to parts such as steel, cement, plastic, silicon, alloys or metals, which are sourced from the makers of respective parts and reusable by the designers of many products such as cars, cell-phones, computers or makers of computer chips etc.?
What is the Objective Reality in the context of large products we know and use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, equipment such as printers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factory etc.?
Let me list couple of facts: A component is a specific kind of part that can be (or designed to be) assembled and disassembled. Except software products, every known large product is built by assembling such specific kind of parts that can be assembled, where the specific kind of parts are widely referred to as components. Also, no other kind of parts is referred to as components in this context.
I was either banned or humiliated, when I politely requested for an opportunity to prove this truth to researchers at few IITs or IIIT at Hyderabad. I was banned for politely requesting an opportunity for demonstrating such software applications built by assembling components (i.e. specific kind of parts that can be assembled).
If there is an institution in 21st century that has authority to prosecute such efforts, I feel, many of those researchers would not hesitate to instigate the institution. In that case, whom should we blame? The institution that prosecuted or those researchers instigated the institution? I would rather be prosecuted for heresy than being ignored, because that may give me an opportunity to present evidence.
Also, the researchers those who watched silently must also share blame. Today no book or research paper on software components for CBD/CBE say this obvious fact: A part can be component in the context of CBD/CBE of large products, only if the part is designed and/or conducive to be assembled and disassembled.
Unfortunately, saying this fact (no part can be a component, if the part can’t be assembled) is considered heresy by the software community. Most researchers I requested for an opportunity to expose this fallacy, tried hard to supress me. Others either choose to be silent or provided tacit support to those vocal suppressors.
It is not hard to demonstrate many examples to prove that there is no valid reason, why we can't design and build large software products in the same way engineers have been designing and building every other kind of complex products we know and use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, equipment such as printers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factory etc.
That is, each large product is built by assembling specific kind of parts that can be assembled. Where the specific kind of parts that are designed to be assembled and disassemble (or can be assembled) are known as components in the context of every such large product we know and use every day.
If every book in the world says that Dolphins lay eggs, don’t you have right to expose such fallacies by presenting evidence (if you have sound evidence)? Any reseacher has moral obligation to expose such fallacy, if it wastes research efforts of thousands by diverting the efforts into inexplicable paradox like geocentric paradigm.
Why the following fallacy is any different from the above fallacy about the Dolphins: Today software parts that can be reusable are defined as components for CBD/CBE for software products? Today no known kind of so called components for software products is conducive to be assembled by any stretch of imagination.
I am willing to be prosecuted and punished, if an opportunity is given and if I fail to provide sound and conclusive proof that it is possible to build software products by assembling real components, where the real components for CBD/CBE for products imply specific kind of parts that can be assembled and disassembled.
Isn’t it wrong to ostracize me (e.g. by resorting to vicious personal attacks) for politely requesting an opportunity to expose a fallacy that is root cause for the infamous software crisis? I am not prosecuted, only because today there is no such institution as Vatican of 17th century to instigate the institution to prosecute me. Too bad, I wish I could get an opportunity to present evidence even in such inquisition.
Is saying this fact heresy: The Dolphins are mammals, so don’t lay eggs? But a similar fact is perceived to be heresy today: Any part can be a component in the context of CBD/CBE of products, only if the part can be assembled. Unfortunately, this fact offended common sense and egos of many renowned researchers and influential experts on so called components for the CBD/CBE of software products.
Every book or research paper on software says: The components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design and Engineering) for software products are parts that are designed and/or conducive to be reusable across multiple software products (or conform to a so called component model).
But the objective reality in the context of CBD/CBE of countless products we know and use every day (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, office equipment such as printers, machines or machinery for factory) is: The components for CBD/CBE for products are specific kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled and disassembled.
Not even a single book or research paper on components for CBD/CBE of products mentions this self-evident fact: A part that is not conducive or designed to be assembled is not a component, in the context of countless products (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, office equipment such as printers, machines or machinery for factory) we know and use every day.
The single greatest contributor for increasing manual productivity in designing, engineering and building large or complex physical products is specific kind of parts that can be assembled and disassembled, where the specific kind of parts are widely known (and/or referred to) as components. Isn’t it a fact: No other kind of part is referred to as component in the context of CBD/CBE of large products?
Many influential or powerful members from the software community have been tried their best to ostracize me for struggling to expose such fallacies about the components at the very foundation of the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for existing dominant software engineering paradigm. Many software experts or researchers won’t hesitate to instigate and aid prosecution for heresy (for offending their egos by exposing sacred beliefs or faith about components), if such option is available.
I feel that it is an honour to be prosecuted for trying to uphold the Truth by any respectable institution or honourable court. If I were convicted, I only blame the researches those aided such inquisition and those who watched silently. I believe, Galileo also would have blamed scientists those who instigated and aided Vatican. Those scientists abdicated their sacred duty of pursuit of objective reality and Truth (e.g. to satisfy their egos offended by the Truth or to cover-up their incompetence).
Whom would you blame, if you were a neutral observer: The Vatican whose sacred duty is upholding the Faith, or the philosophers or scientists (gave evidence as expert witnesses) whose sacred duty is upholding the Truth? I blame the scientists for abdicating their sacred duty. I am sure the Vatican’s inquisition could not have convicted Galileo without the evidence given by those expert witnesses.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Thank you. Isn’t it Fascinating? He made such great contributions at such a young age (he was still teenager).
Dr. Peter, please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science. Normal science solves puzzles that are posed by the prevailing paradigm but does not challenge the paradigm's basic beliefs.
The route to normal science: Kuhn stressed that historically the route to normal science could be a difficult one. Prior to the formation of a shared paradigm or research consensus, would-be scientists were reduced to the accumulation of random facts and unverified observations, in the manner recorded by Pliny the Elder or Francis Bacon,[4] while simultaneously beginning the foundations of their field from scratch through a plethora of competing theories.
I think, computer science just passed this pre-paradigmatic period between 1950 and 1970. And we have been accumulating BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on the basic foundation (comprising untested and unproven beliefs about components), where the BoK shaped our perception of reality (i.e. our paradigm).
For example, basic sciences passed this pre-paradigmatic period between 400BC and 3rd century. Then researchers had been accumulating BoK until 16th century by relying on the basic foundation created during pre-paradigmatic period and the BoK shaped the 16th century perception of reality (i.e. geocentric paradigm).
People like Galileo, Kepler or Descartes made great contribution because they made right choice by using their intellect and reasoning. They were aware of the possibility: the Sun might be at the center. The belief “the Earth is static” was never proven nor even tested.
At that time, researchers had two paths to chose from for doing research, which are geocentric or heliocentric. They would have only one choice, if they never heard the possibility of heliocentric model.
They could not have made useful contribution if others have made choice for them by successfully suppressing discovery of Copernicus, which was perceived to be crazy (or heresy). If they never have heard about Heliocentric model, they must had wasted their efforts just like many other researcher before them in the pursuit of fool's errand (i.e. geocentric paradox)
It is wrong to suppress challenges to untested basic assumption because such suppression denies young researchers an option to make a choice based on evidence. A wrong choice would send them in wild goose chase.
It is unethical (if not criminal) to teach or make unsuspecting students or researchers to work and believe that the geocentric model is the only possible truth, by deliberately hiding or knowingly suppressing the possibility of heliocentric model.
The researchers end up wasting their hard work and research efforts to advance geocentric paradox, since it is impossible to make any tangible contribution to geocentric paradigm because there is nothing of tangible value exists in geocentric paradox. Such research efforts are nothing more than wild goose chase.
When a new model must be built from scratch, one doesn’t need to be a brilliant to make tangible contributions. Even persons having ordinary intellect could make tangible contributions. On the other hand, even the most brilliant persons can’t make any tangible contributions to the geocentric paradox.
Question: In the context of designing and engineering of countless large products we know (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, equipment such as printers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factory to name a few), what is the basic and/or striking difference between specific kind of parts that are certainly components and the other kinds of parts that are certainly not components?
Answer: Even any laymen would agree that the basic and/or striking difference is: The other kinds of parts are neither designed nor conducive to be “assembled”.
Now it comes to your question: What is meant by assembling? You pestered me a year ago about “assembling”. At that time, I paid no attention. But later (due to few issues I encountered) I realized that I must define this.
The ideal form of assembling for a component is making the component easily pluggable. That resulted in filing a new patent.
I believe, the young students and researchers must be made aware that the beliefs about the components are not tested nor proven. It is wrong to suppress alternative proposals such as parts that can't be assembled are not components.
I am not asking any one to blindly follow. But they must have an option to make an educated choice, particularly in case of untested or unproven beliefs created during pre-paradigmatic period.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Acceptance of any evidence or proof is not based on its validity but based on whether the evidence is congruent with his/her background information or climate of opinions (i.e. that are function of dominant paradigm).
Even dozen valid evidences can’t convince other researchers, if each of the evidences are not congruent with his/her background information or climate of opinion (i.e. paradigm).
One of the main criticism of Dr. Kuhn's concept of incommensurability. Many argued that it doesn't exist. But they are wrong. I have been experiencing it first hand. Our discussions are examples.
Dr. Peter, you should read about pre-paradigmatic science. It is very interesting. Many unproven (or irrefutable) assumptions are used for creating the foundation for the first paradigm. Please see pre-science figure at: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/NormalScience.htm
Many flawed assumptions made during pre-paradigmatic period became foundation for building complex paradigms (by relying on them). For example, the assumption that “The Earth is static at the centre” was irrefutable 2000 years ago.
This assumption was foundation for 16th century geocentric paradox. This kind of thing happens only during pre-paradigmatic period. The following assumption is foundation for existing CBD/CBE paradox for software.
Likewise, this tacit assumption was irrefutable 50 to 60 years ago: “It is impossible to invent components that can be assembled to build software products as we could build physical products by assembling components”.
The above fallacy resulted in fallacies such as: Parts that are designed to be reusable are components for software products.
Dr. Peter, I feel most researchers are not evil persons :-), although many react like evil :-( to my posts (due to background assumptions, climate of opinions due to the existing dominant paradigm.).
I can compel them, only by dragging to court, to legally force under supervision of the court to investigate the evidence by overcoming such background assumptions, climate of opinions due to the existing dominant paradigm.
Best Regards,
Raju
I think notions of Objective Reality and of Truth (all capitalized) already expose a certainty that is perhaps not available to mortal creatures.
In any event, taking something out of historical context and applying what might appear to be contemporary standards of scientific conduct to a historical event is an injustice of its own, imposing "blame" on a time when Natural Philosophy was the prevalent mode of thought and a rife opportunity for "heresy."
Shall we now blame Plato, Aristotle and the pre-Socratics for their misconceptions?
If there is a lesson in the case of Galileo and others over time, it might better be applied to our contemporary conception of nature and our place in the world. It merits compassion for human fallibility and dismay for the determination to preserve particular Truth at any cost.
Dear Mr. Hemilton,
Scientific research is a noble endeavor whose sacred duty is upholding the Truth: That demands good faith effort and passionate pursuit of absolute Truth for upholding the Truth. The pursuit of absolute Truth also includes striving to get closer and closure to the absolute Truth, since often it is not possible to get to the Truth (e.g. without successive theories that are incrementally better and better approximation to the Truth/Reality).
The Scientific Method also includes: Unspoken Agreement, Contract, Values and Code of Conduct among the Research Community.
This code of conduct and contract includes many things such as: It is unethical for any real scientist to ask anyone to believe his new Discovery.
Any real researcher is obligated to openly publish valid proof backed by sound evidence and reasoning for his discovery
1. To openly request larger research community to investigate the evidence and proof, and
2. To humbly challenge larger research community to falsify his discovery or theory. This challenge is essential part of scientific method, because any scientific Theory or Discovery can thrive only as long as it can’t be falsified.
--
It is unethical violation of code of conduct and abdication of sacred duty of upholding the Truth/Reality, if any other researcher rejects such new Discovery, without properly validating the Proof.
The Research Community is morally obligated to validate the Proof. How any disruptive discovery can ever be proved or even known to the larger public, if no one is willing to validate such proof backed by sound evidence and reasoning?
Mr. Hemilton, most Human endeavors are far from perfect (or filled with so many imperfections), which includes scientific research and progress. No one described such imperfections better than this most influential book of 20th century “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Dr. Thomas Kuhn.
Dr. Kuhn’s book (is most cited academic books of all time) faced fierce resistance in the earlier years and shined against such adversity (e.g. intense debate and scrutiny) over the decades. It shows the greatness of the ideas discussed in the book: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions
Only lingering criticism of the Book is about incommensurability of ideas and concepts between two competing paradigms. Many philosophers and experts said, there won’t be any incommensurability between any two competing paradigms. I intend to prove such criticism and those critics are wrong.
For example, today we have two competing engineering paradigms for designing and building large or complex products. Most of the concepts between these two radically different paradigms are incommensurable. Please review the attached PDF for a PPT, which presents the two competing paradigms in last slide at 11th page.
P.S: Continued in the next message . . . . . .
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends (and Dr. Peter),
Let me continue the above message. If we admit or not, every human endeavour is far from perfect. Hence, a good faith effort demands learning possible imperfections (or short comings) and taking corrective measures in good faith.
In my humble opinion, many disruptive discoveries are made not by brilliant people, but those who understood unspoken principles of the scientific method and meticulously employ the unspoken principles with discipline.
Peter Breuer (who posted above) is a brilliant person :-), but can't make any disruptive discoveries until he understands the unspoken principles of the scientific method :-(. No disrespect is intended, just trying to be funny ;-).
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
I said you are brilliant - It is a compliment. But you need to have an open mind to think out of the box. I only said, you can't make disruptive discoveries.
But You can make useful discoveries in Normal science. But people like me having ordinary intellect has to settle for simple things, such as finding untested primitive flawed assumptions made during pre-science (during primeval times).
The pre-pragmatic period happens only once for any scientific discipline. It happened, may be between 4th century BC and 1st century AD for basic sciences. It would never return for basic sciences.
In case of computer science and software, the pre-pragmatic period was approximately between 1955 and 1972. Please see just the image as: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/NormalScience.htm (Pre-science is not in the loop).
I realized something very interesting:
---- Today there are 2 Radically Different Engineering Paradigms for Designing & Building Large Products
---> Engineering Paradigm for Designing & Building Software Products only, where this paradigm is evolved by defining Parts that are designed to be Reused are Components
---> Engineering Paradigm for Designing & Building of every other kind of Products, where this paradigm is evolved by defining Parts that can be Assembled (and conducive to be disassembled) are Components
--> The above 2 competing Paradigms for Designing & Engineering of Products are radically different. And Concepts/Ideas are Incommensurable
------- I want to eliminate the first paradigm, because the second one is 10 times better overall.
We had similar problem in 17th century: There were two competing paradigms, where one paradigm was rooted in the belief that “the Earth is at the centre”, while the other paradigm was rooted in the belief that “the Sun is at the centre”.
P.S: Let me know what you think about attached PDF for a PPT. I greatly appreciate your thoughts.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Let me continue previous message to make an interesting and funny observation about Incommensurability between competing paradigms:
Almost every engineer has working knowledge about engineering paradigm for designing & building other kind of large or complex products by using components and component based design.
Please wear hat of engineering paradigm expert for other kind of large or complex products, then try to explain about components and component-based design to a 2nd yourself wearing hat of software engineer.
P.S (just for fun): Let me caution you 😉: The 2nd-you may resort to personal attacks on the 1st-you for insulting his common sense, when trying to describe components for explaining the engineering paradigm for other kind of large or complex products, where the engineering paradigm requires designing, building and testing each of the components individually and assembling the components for building each of the large products. I want see how 1st-You reacts;-).
Many great philosophers such as Dr. Popper were critical about Dr. Kuhn's concept of Incommensurability. I feel, Dr. Kuhn realized that most of the human endeavors would have imperfections, including scientific research, knowledge and progress.
In my humble opinion, the main difference between Dr. Popper and Dr. Kuhn is, one is more of an Idealist while the other is more of a realist.
Dr. Kuhn studied history of science and learned valuable lessons and insights from the history of science by being astute student of history. He realized that imperfections are unavoidable, and by knowing about possibility of imperfections allow us to take corrective measures.
For example, accepting the possibility of imperfections in our knowledge allow you to make discoveries by detecting or accepting imperfections sooner than others, who are blissfully ignorant and denying such possibility (as software research community have been refusing to accept imperfections in CBD/CBE for years).
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic