One of the RG members shared this link https://www.change.org/p/researchgate-researchgate-violation-of-freedom-of-speech-and-scientific-freedom, which made me wonder about Galileo’s struggles. Galileo’s views might had had 1000s of down votes, resulted in banning him. He was outspoken and tried very hard to expose the error, which made him very unpopular. It certainly would attract heated debate and personal attacks. For example, Copernicus don’t want to face ire of philosophers, so he allowed publishing his discovery when he was on his deathbed. Kepler was also escaped ire, because he shared his discoveries for himself and with few close associates.
Universal consent without any descent can’t make an axiom self-evident truth (i.e. scientific fact). If that is true, “the Earth is static” had unanimous consent without any descent for 1000 years. Likewise, each kind of software component is defined as nothing but a kind of useful parts either having certain useful properties or conform to a so called component model. These definitions has universal consent without any descent for 50 years.
Philosophers 500 years ago used retrograde motions and epicycles to discredit proposal of heliocentric. Of course, any one standing on the static Earth can observe retrograde motions, but now we know what went wrong. See figures 1 and 4 at: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html
By relying on the axiom “the Earth is static”, the philosophers constructed a complex paradoxical paradigm for 1000 years. It is an illegal circular logic to defend the axiom “the Earth is static” by using the concepts derived by relying on the axiom. If such axiom is wrong, whole paradigm is wrong (altered perception of reality):
In software engineering, tens of thousands of researchers have been doing research (by relying on the flawed definitions of so called software components) for past few decades resulted in evolution of a complex paradoxical paradigm.
That is the reason, I call such axioms root/seed axioms. If such seed axiom is wrong, the whole branch is wrong. In other words, an error in such seed axiom side-tracks progress into wrong direction (i.e. in to a branch – a paradoxical paradigm).
Unfortunately most scientists are not interested in Truth but only interested in winning the argument at any cost (e.g. to satisfy their egos or to cover-up their incompetency). Other reasons include prejudice or discrimination (may not be conscious but subconsciously not ready to accept ideas from unknown researchers from third world). It manifests into irrational scepticism: http://ezinearticles.com/?Irrational-Skepticism&id=428104
I was banned for asking, inconvenient questions and defending them by relying on facts and empirical evidence such as: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Didnt_computer_science_violate_the_basic_scientific_process and https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_researchers_know_the_difference_between_2_kinds_of_learning_learning_by_accepting_and_learning_by_discoveringOf course, unfortunately I was forced to defend my self-respect and ended up heated debate with Dr. Peter Breuer, when he start attacking me personally. Of course, later he become a friend after knowing more about my work and exchanged private emails.
I feel, ReserachGate would become far better place, if moderators gives warning and opportunity to defend or explain one’s position, before banning him. Of course, I agree there must be no room for personal attacks. Over 500 years ago saying “the Sun is at the centre” offended then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and insulted common sense. Who discovered that “the Earth is at the centre” and “”who proved it”.
Asking for proof is a legitimate (in fact essential) act for scientific process, even it was perceived as arrogant and disrespectful. I feel, my questions were legitimate, even they appeared to be arrogant and disrespectful. For example, respected professors said: why do you think you are alone right and rest of the world is wrong? It shows my legitimate question perceived as arrogant and disrespectful.
In science, asking for proof or offering to show proof can never be considered as arrogant or disrespectful. I feel moderators must evaluate the question as a neutral judge, not influenced by prejudice. My questions (and offering proof for real CBSD) infuriated many experts, who have been working on CBSE for all their lives. It was beyond wildest imagination that “the Earth is moving” (if the Earth were moving, how could Moon follow it) 500 years ago. Such questions considered as insults, so replies resulting in personal attacks. Just because, if one believes and relies on an axiom for all his life, it is not a blasphemy to ask for proof (or offer proof to expose error).
Of course, Research gate is a great place and very valuable for fledgling researchers, especially researchers from third world and independent researchers. Such researchers must not be banned easily (without giving an opportunity to explain their position) for views, even if the views infuriate other researchers. Even for such valuable resource, there is always room for improvement. If RG is not valuable, I would not spend so much time here and would try to become member (after being banned). I hope, RG would become more useful and effective site for open and honest debate.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dr. Komarov,
Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena don’t need RG. They can call 100s of top researchers in the world to get feedback on their ideas. Most of them feel honored to review and debate with such famous researchers. But a PhD student doing research in a small university in Asia and Africa can’t even find another researcher interested in his niche area of research for 100 miles around.
Also there are many kinds of researcher, such as, like me, who do research out of passion and irresistible curiosity in our homes full time for many years. It is a valuable resource to share my work and get feedback. Since there is no other such website as good as RG, it is a monopoly. If you need something (i.e. you feel very useful), and if you can get from only one source, isn’t it monopoly?
Komarov, 500 years ago philosophers insisted to explain the planetary orbits, without directly or indirectly contradict concept of so called self-evident fact “the Earth is static”. If was impossible to do that. There is a reason it was called scientific revolution. Mankind not experienced such scientific revolution since then.
I am telling you from my firsthand personal experience for past 5 years. Software researchers don’t want to hear anything that contradicts the deeply entrenched unproven definitions for so called software components or CBSE for software. Those definitions have no basis in reality, and in fact are clear contradiction to the realty we know about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products. No one ever validated nor even questioned their validity,
For example, most researchers insist that it is impossible to invent real CBD for software, equivalent to the CBD of physical products, without even knowing what is the true essence of the CBD of physical products. If they don’t even know what it is, how can they say that it is impossible?
Nothing one says makes sense, because everything is seen from the prism (i.e. the Earth is static or components are reusable). It is well known that such concepts are incommensurable. Even if it offends, you have to bite the bullet (endure humiliating snubs & condescending advises) and stand your ground. There is no other way. Just keep offering the proof, hoping eventually some one would be willing to see the light of truth. That is the reason I build first ever GUI API capable of creating real-software-components for achieving real CBD for software at: www.pioneer-soft.com, so that any one can experience real CBSD firsthand.
Galileo faced huge opposition and complex questions, such as if the Earth is moving, how can the Moon follow the Erath moving at astonishing speed (we know now about 18 miles per second). Why the Erath is not left behind. Galileo tried to show proof that even bigger moons circling Jupiter (there was no dispute that Jupiter is moving, either around the earth or Sun). Please recall Galileo’s famous letter to Kepler.
In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
Komarov, tell me, this kind of question offensive and would you ban him for life? Philosophers called Kepler’s laws subjective. They may perceive them as subjective, but do you think Kepler feels such accurate laws are subjective. When he discovered something and spend over a decade to painstakingly define so precisely, how can they be subjective to Kepler? They withstood the test of time.
I am sure, such discoveries perceived as subjective when heard first-time. Proposing them as facts infuriated philosophers. No one can propose such laws without contradicting the so called fact “the Earth is static”. Likewise, I can’t contradict unproven definitions for so called software components.
It infuriated many software researchers, when I said a verifiable fact that no other GUI-API allows developers to create real-software-components. If they disagree, they can prove me wrong by showing me a single large real-software-component. I created 100s of real-software-components by using GUI-API I invented starting year 2001 for achieving real CBD for software. Many examples were openly hosted in my web site. Although I am absolutely sure my ideas are not subjective, I don’t mind accepting them as subjective for the sake of productive debate.
Any scientific discovery can withstand and prevail rigorous scrutiny, but can’t prevail everyone thinks it is someone else’s job. Posting my articles here in RG helped reach wider audience. For example, couple of my recent articles reviewed by 100s of researchers.
Best Regards,
Raju
Slightly off topic, ResearchGate really lacks a useful function "hide", similar to "mute" what is on Twitter, for example. It would be very convenient instrument to those annoying excessive activity of other users of the resource.
This is also user-friendly tool to temporarily hide activity of people who are distracted by the fact that deals with the problems that currently have little interest for you.
This may be lead to lower aggression of downvoting.
I noticed that the policy of the ResearchGate has changed simultaneously and has been applied to a number of users. RG needs to develop further. The interaction of people always generates conflicts. This is dialectic.
I believe that Galileo would have found a way to ignore ResearchGate or any other system that would be opposed to him.
Be a good psychologist at first :)
Dr. Komarov,
I agree with you. I like researchgate and found to be very valuable tool, especially for independent lonewolfe researchers and researchers from developing countries like me.
In software we had a saying: successful software products would attract so many requests for more and more features and/or improvements. Mine is just a request for improvement.
Even if a question or idea infuriates research community, he must not be banned without giving him an opportunity to explain his side.
You said: I believe that Galileo would have found a way to ignore ResearchGate or any other system that would be opposed to him.
My question is, if he were a member of ResearchGate and try to defend forcefully his ideas, what would the chances of escaping form banned.
For example, my question was legitimate and yet banned without any notice or warning: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Didnt_computer_science_violate_the_basic_scientific_process. Today I can help even junior programmer create real-software-components for achieving real CBSD. I thought my password was not working. Wouldn’t be nice, if I were informed?
Both Copernicus and Kepler not tried hard enough (i.e. ignored any other system that would be opposed – that includes almost every one), but Galileo tried hard and ended up punished. You could understand the opposition by looking at the chronology of events: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology.
Best Regards,
Raju
Kindly allow me to add few points to my question: ReserachGate is become a monopoly by having largest network of researchers and with best forum for sharing ideas. It is not wrong, but this power must be used and exercised responsibly. Although there may be competing networks, they are distant second.
So for all practical purposes, RG is a monopoly especially for independent researchers and researchers in small universities in developing countries. For example, in small universities in remote areas of the world (e.g. in Asia or Africa), there could be at most one or two PhD students in certain un-popular disciplines. For such researchers, RG is essential to present their ideas to larger community for getting feedback. Also to get access to research in progress by the informal papers published in the specific discipline. To learn, numerous perspectives of work in progress, instead of few published papers.
If they were banned for expressing legitimate ideas (which may infuriate research community), they were cut-off from valuable resource and network. They are least afford to defend. I know the helpless feeling, because I was banned for expressing ideas that was widely opposed, which attracted personal attaches. I tried to defend my self-respect by responding appropriately that escalated (that I was not proud off). I did no wrong, because I feel it is not wrong to defending my self-respect.
Of course, there is a clear line between expressing scientific ideas and indecent or unacceptable behaviour, in real sciences. However, in pseudo sciences or non-scientific disciplines such as political or economic science that line not so bright, so I am not qualified to make judgements.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Raju Chiluvuri,
Like any problem, here we have two sides. Each person may be at some point either at one side or the other.
Man is a social creature, which is in communication with their own kind. I must say that, first of all, common sense defines the standards of conduct. No matter you are Galileo or not, your activity can provoke a certain kind of irritation in the vast majority of people.
There is at least one category of activity for which the blocking has to be - it's SPAM in the discussions. I know an example among recently blocked persons, whom (in spite of the fact that he tried to inform the society with interesting and important message) ban was fair. Alas. I'm on the side of the RG. However, for the first time it can be limited to the time, as Facebook does for a month for example.
I can honestly say that I do not carefully studied the policy on the RG. I do not think there are many such pedantic users.
And a few words about "Galileo". Big bets are very expensive. Are you ready to pay wealth, career, reputation, relationships with relatives, colleagues..? I spent a lot of time learning how dramatic ideas make inroads. In the 21st century it is easy to understand this topic. Mankind has accumulated a large statistics on this issue. Because it is easy to draw conclusions:
- Model the behavior of opponents, putting yourself in their shoes.
- Tell the idea to those who are able to understand it, do not waste time on the others.
- Anticipate response.
- If nobody understands, change the method of presentation or look for errors in your idea.
- Invent a way to secure protection of information from destruction by skeptics.
- Invent an effective way to bypass conservative structures of society.
But it's the little things in comparison with the main problem of the proof of the importance of the idea itself.
As for the monopoly of ResearchGate. A simple and obvious example: Stephen Hawking is not a RG user, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena too. But that does not diminish their importance. And there are a lot of such people.
Dr. Komarov,
Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena don’t need RG. They can call 100s of top researchers in the world to get feedback on their ideas. Most of them feel honored to review and debate with such famous researchers. But a PhD student doing research in a small university in Asia and Africa can’t even find another researcher interested in his niche area of research for 100 miles around.
Also there are many kinds of researcher, such as, like me, who do research out of passion and irresistible curiosity in our homes full time for many years. It is a valuable resource to share my work and get feedback. Since there is no other such website as good as RG, it is a monopoly. If you need something (i.e. you feel very useful), and if you can get from only one source, isn’t it monopoly?
Komarov, 500 years ago philosophers insisted to explain the planetary orbits, without directly or indirectly contradict concept of so called self-evident fact “the Earth is static”. If was impossible to do that. There is a reason it was called scientific revolution. Mankind not experienced such scientific revolution since then.
I am telling you from my firsthand personal experience for past 5 years. Software researchers don’t want to hear anything that contradicts the deeply entrenched unproven definitions for so called software components or CBSE for software. Those definitions have no basis in reality, and in fact are clear contradiction to the realty we know about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products. No one ever validated nor even questioned their validity,
For example, most researchers insist that it is impossible to invent real CBD for software, equivalent to the CBD of physical products, without even knowing what is the true essence of the CBD of physical products. If they don’t even know what it is, how can they say that it is impossible?
Nothing one says makes sense, because everything is seen from the prism (i.e. the Earth is static or components are reusable). It is well known that such concepts are incommensurable. Even if it offends, you have to bite the bullet (endure humiliating snubs & condescending advises) and stand your ground. There is no other way. Just keep offering the proof, hoping eventually some one would be willing to see the light of truth. That is the reason I build first ever GUI API capable of creating real-software-components for achieving real CBD for software at: www.pioneer-soft.com, so that any one can experience real CBSD firsthand.
Galileo faced huge opposition and complex questions, such as if the Earth is moving, how can the Moon follow the Erath moving at astonishing speed (we know now about 18 miles per second). Why the Erath is not left behind. Galileo tried to show proof that even bigger moons circling Jupiter (there was no dispute that Jupiter is moving, either around the earth or Sun). Please recall Galileo’s famous letter to Kepler.
In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
Komarov, tell me, this kind of question offensive and would you ban him for life? Philosophers called Kepler’s laws subjective. They may perceive them as subjective, but do you think Kepler feels such accurate laws are subjective. When he discovered something and spend over a decade to painstakingly define so precisely, how can they be subjective to Kepler? They withstood the test of time.
I am sure, such discoveries perceived as subjective when heard first-time. Proposing them as facts infuriated philosophers. No one can propose such laws without contradicting the so called fact “the Earth is static”. Likewise, I can’t contradict unproven definitions for so called software components.
It infuriated many software researchers, when I said a verifiable fact that no other GUI-API allows developers to create real-software-components. If they disagree, they can prove me wrong by showing me a single large real-software-component. I created 100s of real-software-components by using GUI-API I invented starting year 2001 for achieving real CBD for software. Many examples were openly hosted in my web site. Although I am absolutely sure my ideas are not subjective, I don’t mind accepting them as subjective for the sake of productive debate.
Any scientific discovery can withstand and prevail rigorous scrutiny, but can’t prevail everyone thinks it is someone else’s job. Posting my articles here in RG helped reach wider audience. For example, couple of my recent articles reviewed by 100s of researchers.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dr. Stoica,
Thank you. Nothing in the history of science faced higher opposition and more scrutiny than the discovery of “the Sun is at the center”. It is scrutinized more rigorously than any thing else. Exposing a flaw in seed axiom of deeply entrenched is paradigm is a complex and contentious endeavor.
But it has to be done because in the process mankind learns valuable lesions. For example, some of the lessons were captured in the insightful quotes of Galileo: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/Galileo-quotes.html
Until this error was exposed, even basic sciences were not real science. It forced philosophers to question every thing. Please remember Rene Descartes famous quote “I think, therefore I am”. Such intellectual struggles spanning 100 years transformed basic sciences in to real sciences. These struggles resulted in creating a sound foundation for the philosophy of science and our scientific knowledge. For example, it resulted in creating sound scientific processes and accepted rules.
I feel, such struggles are essential for computer science to transform it into real science, for example, which can lead to discoveries essential for inventing real artificial intelligence. If we don’t even try to know the nature and essence of real CBD, it shows the week foundation on which computer science is built. Refusing to investigate the facts/reality shows the immaturity of our scientific discipline.
All I am asking is investigate the facts and reality on their own and not rely on untested and unproven axioms (without documenting them) – Just follow the basic scientific processes and accepted rules. This kind of expression can’t be considered offensive, but many experts perceive this as disrespectful and arrogant. Of course, I too may be offended, if some one says that my lifetimes work is flawed/lie. But I feel, such expression must be fall under freedom of speech and expression, essential for open and honest debate.
Unfortunately some times heated debate degrades into personal attacks (e.g. attacks on character or motives). For example, many philosophers blamed that Galileo committed blasphemy to promote his services as astronomer. Of course, often people make discoveries in the field they are making living. Must he abandon his profession to express his views or promote his discoveries? I don’t think so – It must not be a bar to express one’s views. Does it change the value of the scientific facts? All he asked was to investigate the Truth and offered to help by asking them to validate the Truth using improved Telescope he invented.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Komarov,
I am a lone researcher in a remote part of India. If I feel something is very interesting and would like to share with others, how can I do that without RG? Let me give you an example. I shared the following with few people I only have known through RG:
One of the greatest deception perpetuated by nature upon mankind was convince that “the Earth is static” at the centre. One of the most foolish mistakes perpetuated by mankind is blindly defining the nature of the components and CBD for products by ignoring the reality and nature (e.g. essential characteristics of physical functional components and essential aspects of CBD for software products).
"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox" … Galileo Galilei
That is exactly what science fiction movies and books do. They create and maintain a paradox by denying scientific principles (i.e. violate widely accepted scientific processes and break proven scientific rules). Existing software engineering (especially CBD for software) paradigm is a paradox, where the paradox (e.g. a science fiction) has been maintained by denying proven scientific principles and processes.
I feel, many software experts must take blame for this. I feel, many software researchers are negligent and/or at least complacent, even when I informed them in clear and uncertain terms to investigate the Truth/Reality.
This is denying the opportunity for many young researchers to make positive contribution (so end up wasting their hard work). For example, how anyone could possibly make any meaningful or useful contribution to the flawed geocentric paradigm (a paradox created due to similar error at the root)? They invested their hard work on wild goose chase (or fool’s errand) due to the error. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_should_be_blamed_for_prolonging_any_scientific_crisis_in_the_21st_century_resulting_wasted_efforts_of_thousands_of_researchers_scientists
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning