Dear Friends,
I am wondering, if any philosopher of science answered these important questions? I feel it is essential that the main differences must be debated to gain insights to positively identify real sciences and to differentiate them from pseudo sciences by giving valid reasons. I feel that it is essential for any real scientists to know, what is a real science? Isn’t it essential knowledge for real scientists? This knowledge could have prevented computer science from drifted into pseudo-science.
What are the essential characteristics that make a science a real science? What are the characteristics unique to only the pseudo-science, where the unique characteristics make a scientific discipline a pseudo-science? Most of us already subconsciously know answers to these questions (i.e. such as striking characteristics and nature). For example, why no one is asking, weather sciences such as botany, zoology, organic chemistry or sub-fields of microbiology such as virology, mycology, parasitology or bacteriology are real sciences? Answer is simple: Everyone expects that (a) researchers know basic scientific principles and processes, and (b) everyone expects researchers to strictly follow the basic scientific principles and processes. This must be true for each and every sub-discipline (or sub-field) of such sciences.
The scientific knowledge of each of the scientific disciplines comprising of accepted facts have no inexplicable contradictions or anomalies – These scientific disciplines can and need to make many more discoveries - But existing scientific knowledge and facts are not in crisis or (i.e. in disarray due to many inexplicable contradictions and anomalies). For example, 500 years ago geocentric paradigm was in a crises and disarray due to inexplicable retrograde motions and epicycles (or unpredictable seemingly random paths of planets). No such crisis or disarray exists in the knowledge and facts discovered in any of those real scientific disciplines.
The main difference between real science and pseudo-science is: The real sciences can and must strictly follow scientific principles and processes in each and every sub-field and knowledge of facts, for example, by relying on scientific knowledge comprising of demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts. No inexplicable anomalies or contradictions are tolerated. But the pseudo sciences are unable to rely on such demonstrable and repeatable scientific facts for certain sub-disciplines or knowledge of concepts. They have no choice but to rely on conclusions, which can’t be proved to be facts. Even if each conclusion can’t be disproved, it is not a fact until it is proven. Any conclusion that is not yet proven must be documented as an assumption.
Even a real science ends up as a pseudo-science, if it can’t strictly follow basic scientific principles and processes (e.g. by relying on an axiom – Than can’t be proved wrong and can’t be proved fact). For example, mankind assumed couple of thousands of years ago that “the Earth is static (at the centre)”. This was assumed to be self-evident facts, because no one can find an evidence to disprove the belief 2000 years ago. Since it was impossible to prove this postulation is a fact 2000 years ago - Relying on such unproven fact lead to the evolution of geocentric paradigm – a pseudo-science (filled with so many inexplicable contradictions and anomalies). They were forced to accept inexplicable epicycles as the nature of planetary motions. Exposing the flawed fact and relying on accurate fact transformed the pseudo-science in to a real science.
Any science having inexplicable contradictions and anomalies and tolerates them is a pseudo-science. Often researchers feel they have no choice but to accept them and forced to find excuses to justify. No scientific discovery in real sciences is accepted as a fact until all the contradictions are explained by using logical reasoning backed by evidence (e.g. experimental or observable facts). Furthermore, any fact can be invalidated or falsified by finding even a single inexplicable contradiction or anomaly. inexplicable contradictions and anomalies are not tolerated. It is essential for any real science to strictly follow such basic scientific processes and principles without any exceptions. That is, there is no exception to such rules.
Existing CBSD (Component Based Software Design) in software engineering (a major sub-discipline of computer science) has been in disarray (popularly known as software crisis) for decades. The CBSD is filled with so many inexplicable contradictions and anomalies resulting in unpredictable results having inexplicable nature. Researchers concluded such inexplicable retrograde motions and epicycles are the very nature of software engineering. Due to the presence of many inexplicable contradictions and anomalies (by tolerating or justifying them), many experts rightly questioned, if computer science is a real science? – Isn’t it a valid question or dilemma? If such inexplicable contradictions and anomalies are justified as very nature of a scientific discipline and tolerated, such scientific discipline can’t be a real science.
Now let’s examine the source of the problem in computer science: The software researchers nearly 50 years ago concluded that nature of software design and development is unique and/or different (e.g. from design of physical products). They also concluded that it is impossible to invent real software components (equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real CBSD (that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products). Existing software engineering and CBSD paradigm has been evolving for over 45 years by relying on such unproven beliefs (that might be flawed).
In real science, anything that is not yet proven must be treated as an assumption. It is a clear violation of basic scientific process and principles to rely on an unproven fact (even if it is presided to be a self-evident fact) without clearly documenting the assumption or belief. Such conclusions (i.e. beliefs) at the root of existing software engineering paradigm were never documented (not even mentioned) to inform and clearly warn future generations of researcher to prove or disprove, if and when technology sufficiently advanced to validate the beliefs. It is impossible to find any evidence any one ever even tried to prove such beliefs. It might be impossible to disprove the conclusions even 30 years ago.
However, software technology advances substantially during late 1980s and early 1990s. Today I have irrefutable facts and evidence to prove that such conclusions (considered self-evident facts 50 years ago) are flawed. Exposing flawed beliefs at the root of geocentric paradigm transformed basic science into a real science. Likewise, exposing flawed beliefs at the root of existing CBSD paradigm transforms respective sub-field of computer science in to real science: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304248122_What_is_a_Real_Science_What_is_not_a_Real_or_Pseudo_Science_How_Computer_Science_can_be_transformed_from_Pseudo_Science_to_real_Science_today. There are no valid reasons, why computer science can’t follow basic scientific principles/processes. Today many software experts feel that it is a heresy to question such unproven beliefs.
I would like to know primary characteristics of pseudo sciences and how they can be differentiated from real sciences. Let me start this debate by proposing two striking differences between real sciences and pseudo sciences (1) Pseudo sciences (e.g. economic science and political science) have no choice but to rely on few beliefs or conclusions, where certain conclusions can’t be disproved or can’t be proved that is it a demonstrable and repeatable fact, and (2) The knowledge acquired by relying on such conclusions comprises of certain inexplicable anomalies or contradictions (i.e. prone to empirical falsification). They feel they have no choice but tolerate anomalies.
That is, not able to fallow basic scientific principles rules or tolerating anomalies are character and very nature of the pseudo-sciences. The pseudo sciences are forced to tolerate or justify such exceptions, because they have no other option. Exceptions to rules such as violating basic scientific principles or processes (e.g. relying on unproven beliefs) is not acceptable and not tolerated in the real sciences.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Thesis What is a Real Science? What is not a Real (or Pseudo) Scien...
Raju,
I won't try to answer all of your questions. However, there are a few misconceptions about science and pseudo-science. Science is not implicitly about proven (fact) versus unproven. There are many theories at are accepted by science because they "fit" the observations or are the best scientifically-rational answer. However, they are called theories because they can not be proven as absolute fact. Many theories only await the invention of better technology to prove them right or wrong. John Dalton first proposed the existence of atoms in 1808 and atomic theory propagated from there, but it was not until 1983 that we actually had adequate scientific instruments to see an atom. Just because a theory, or even what was considered a scientific fact, is discarded or disproved does not mean that it is now pseudo-science.
Pseudo-science and crypto-science generally is applied to those claims from individuals or groups that have no real basis in science but to the layman can appear to be science. For instance, if a person or group claimed that they had evidence that silica was a transmuted form of gold, their complex techno-jargon explanation could convince the non-scientist that it was true. If a person not schooled in archaeology or anthropology finds a naturally rounded rock and writes a paper claiming that it is a sling stone used by ancient man, but does have any proof that it was intentionally manufactured, have evidence of use (polishing, blood residue analysis), or any evidence of other clearly human-related artifacts in the area, then that would be pseudo-science.
Most people promoting pseudo-science or crypto-science truly believe what they are saying, but sadly they are misguided or misinformed about the way science and the scientific principle works. However, some people spout these bizarre theories or bash accepted theory in order to cast doubt on real science.
All of that being said, a layman can make a hitherto-fore unknown discovery and, through careful research and documentation, make a contribution to science.
Dear Green,
Thank you. Kindly elaborate my question. Today there is debate, if computer science is a real science. Let me refries my question in light of this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science : What is a hard Science?
I agree, theories in hard sciences can rely on assumptions and beliefs. But the theories must clearly document the assumptions and beliefs for other researchers to validate the assumptions and beliefs.
Also in hard sciences, theories are not accepted as facts until they are proven. That is, theories are treated as assumptions until they are proven. Hence no one rely on theories (as facts) until they are proven to be facts. Theories can be falsified, if and when inexplicable anomalies or contradictions are discovered. That is, hard sciences must not tolerate inexplicable anomalies or contradictions.
For example, basic science had evolved by relying on unproven belief “the Earth is static” for at least 1500 years. This flawed belief was never proven (or even documented), but concluded to be a self-evident fact. – It is a violation of scientific principles and processes. This resulted in geocentric paradox filled with inexplicable retrograde notions and epicycles or contradictions. They not only tolerated but also defended them by using even more bizarre assumptions.
This proves, even hard sciences can be drifted into soft sciences. This could happen even in 21st century. How can we detect that? How can we prevent that? I am asking this question, because it is happening now in major disciplines (e.g. CBSD and AI) of computer science (as explained in my question). Existing CBSD (Component Based Software Design) paradigm is filled with inexplicable anomalies or contradictions, which are not only tolerated but also defended by using more baseless beliefs and excuses such as design of software products is different or unique.
For example, so far no one in the world gave me even a single valid reason, why software products can’t be build by literally assembling its components, where each component can be designed, build and tested individually outside of the product – Isn’t it how each and every large one-of-a-kind physical product (e.g. an experimental of a spacecraft or next generation jet-fighter) is built? If given opportunity, I can demonstrate dozens of CBD software applications created literally by assembling such replaceable components.
I am sure it would be shocking to any scientist, if he learns that hundreds of thousands of researchers wasted their passion and hard work for many decades by relying on unproven beliefs (having no basis in reality or facts, but in fact clear contradiction to the reality) about the nature and properties of the virus or bacteria? Is it possible to find cure for infections by blinding defining such properties (that are in clear contradiction to the reality) by refusing to make any effort to learn the facts/reality?
Most experts don’t believe this kind of thing could happen in the 21st century. No one could believe that scientists have been doing such monumentally foolish mistake for decades. But software researchers did (have been doing) this for nature and properties of components or CBD (for decades).
If it is wrong to blindly define nature and properties of the viruses or bacteria, why is it not wrong to blindly define nature and properties of the components and the CBD (without any basis in reality or facts, but in clear contradiction to obvious facts)?
The software researchers made (and continue to make) the two mistakes: (1) The software researchers violated the basic scientific principles and processes by relying on unproven beliefs (concluded to be self-evident facts) to blindly define the nature and properties of components for CBSD, and (2) The software researchers not only tolerating but also blindly defending them. Many software researchers feel it is heresy to request researchers to investigate facts/reality.
Hence, I feel this kind of information and knowledge is essential to prevent science that can be hard science but drifted into soft sciences. Also it is useful to pull back such hard sciences that drifted into soft sciences due to violation of scientific principles and end up tolerating inexplicable anomalies and contradictions by relying on more and more unproven excuses or beliefs.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Raju, You have asked very hard question... Without reading your attached work...I will answer... i do not want to be influenced...only with some axioms based on my observation, but take them with critics...
1. A real science is a ideal science...
2. For a good real science needs such a axioms which majorities are present at such a science winch are considered real science...
3. The real science needs well developed philosophy which are trying to describe our outside and our perceptions as they are...
.... I have developed basics of such a philosophy (have characteristics new Platonic, Hegelian, and Taoism... taking in considerations principle of thermodynamics)...
http://moly.hu/konyvek/horvath-laszlo-attila-az-eszme (after it publication i lost my job as a geologist in three mounts... I did have occasion to work in my profession even if i have had some personal development which made me competitive)
in short lot concepts strongly accepted we can accept like basics of pseudo scientifically thought... example Big Bang Theory, Accretion theory, accepted theory of gravity, Plate Tectonics... They development was made onto base of oversimplification... -simply said the natural was interpreted from generalization of totally idealistic subjective processes... Only those science we can accept like real science which was developed from direct observation of engineers verified developments...
Raju,
First, I see what you are saying about hard versus soft science, but soft science is not necessarily pseudo-science but logic or dogma that is thought to be fact through ignorance, even unintentional ignorance. Additionally, many of the soft science ideas had basis if fact that was either later proven or led to hard science.
Having much computer software programming experience in my youth, back in the 1980s we were using CBD. What is a Random Number Generator? What is an IF, OR, THEN GOTO, RETURN, statement if not a CBD. We had statements that were regularly used in programming that were copied and pasted where needed and only the GOTO line number or operational character (B, D, J, etc.) were changed. However, Computer Science is called a science because you input a value and get an answer in return. With the exception of a random number generator, an input X always produces an output Y. If it did not, then it would not be a viable science.
However, I am not a fan of modern computer programmers. We used to write code in as small of blocks as possible because of the speed of processors, but primarily due to hard drive capacities of only 200 or 500 MB. Compressed code uses less space and runs faster. Today's programmers do not try to write minimal code because of our current processor speeds and large storage capacity. This has created grossly huge programs that use unnecessary memory, drive space, and processing power. A lot of this also is due to the fact that writing efficient, minimal code costs more due to the time it takes to figure out how to minimize statements and steps. The creation of small, efficient programming components can reduce the fat, while minimizing the effort and time of assembly.
In regards to the current bloated software. In the early 1990s when hard drives averaged 500 MB and processors around 100 MHz, the Word Perfect word processing program for Windows 3.1 fit on two 3.5-inch floppy disks (~2.8 MB). When processors jumped up to about 233 MHz and hard drive breakthroughs led to 2.5-4.0 GB hard drives, the next Word Perfect program (for Windows 95) was approximately 115 MB, or over 40 times as large, but there were only minor improvements to the program. The big difference between the two versions was that after the larger hard drives became available, programmers stopped trying to minimize software code.
Science starts from knowings of one end of cause and effects till knowings of other end(s), in between all can be;
1) Calculation, measurement, quantification etc for understanding of mind
2) Illusions, assumptions of reality as curtains in front of reality etc.
3) Transitional realities, intermediate products etc.
Regards,
Real science must be fair and honest to herself and to others.
Pseudoscience just coats makeup on the "ugly and dishonest face."
Dear Green and Horwath,
I am not disagreeing with you. Kindly allow me to present my side: It is not a violation of scientific process to rely on axioms or assumption for proposing theories to investigate or explore new and unexplored areas of scientific frontiers. In fact, it may be not only essential but also the only way. The theories you mentioned are at the frontiers of scientific knowledge & used to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge.
But it is certainly a gross violation of scientific principles to not document such beliefs or conclude such beliefs as inalienable self-evident facts for evolving a complex scientific paradigm. The belief “the Earth is static” ended up at the core of mankind’s scientific knowledge and paradigm – The geocentric paradigm.
Kindly notice the critical difference between these two kinds (1) using documented beliefs to advance the frontiers of scientific knowledge and (2) having unknown or undocumented beliefs at the very core of our scientific knowledge and mature deeply entrenched paradigm of a scientific discipline.
This is exactly what happened to the geocentric paradigm, which had evolved for 1500 years by concluding the belief is inalienable self-evident fact. This exactly what happened in computer science. No one can list the beliefs, but insist that the beliefs are self-evident facts. The beliefs are at the root of exiting software engineering paradigm and very seeds of existing CBSD paradox.
Invalidating seed axiom (i.e. the Earth is static) invalidated the most of the scientific knowledge evolved for over 1500 years. It is hard for any scientist to accept most of his knowledge is a lie, because it is rooted in a hidden lie. It is not his fault. He was thought by showing him retrograde motions and epicycles are reality.
Questioning the existence of retrograde motions insulted their common sense and intelligence. Since flawed beliefs are at the core of a mature paradigm and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom (i.e. common sense), it is perceived to be arrogant and disrespectful to question validity.
Even the greatest minds such as Newton could not have made any useful contribution to the Geocentric paradigm (e.g. If he were to born 150 years earlier, or the error at the root of Geocentric paradigm were not exposed for another 150 years). Only useful contribution any one could possibly make is exposing the error at the root to invalidate the whole paradigm. When there is nothing useful to discover in such paradoxical paradigm, how anyone (even Newton) could find a useful discovery?
If the undocumented and unknown beliefs at the root of software engineering are flawed, the software researchers have been wasting their efforts to advancing the geocentric paradigm of software engineering. Can we afford such flawed beliefs at the core of a mature scientific and/or technological disciplines?
Don’t you agree, such beliefs at the root can’t be justified by comparing with documented assumption used for proposing theories to advance the frontiers of our scientific knowledge. Any hard science would end up as a soft science, if such unknown flawed beliefs are at the root. Tolerating violation of scientific principles and justifying inexplicable animalise are tell tail signs of such soft science, which can be transformed into hard science.
Kindly let me inform what we are missing: If these flawed beliefs at the root of software engineering were exposed 30 years ago, we would be building 30 times more complex software to address 30 times more complex problems. It would need a fraction of the time and cost to create existing large software products by using real software components and CBSD. The productivity and quality would be 20 to 30 times more than we have now.
Kindly also allow me to speculate that we most likely be enjoying first generation real Artificial Intelligence (if AI were rooted in hard facts) by now, not just pseudo AI based on computationally intensive algorithms, massive error prone data for machine learning and error prone rule based expert systems (having many subjective exceptions to the rules). I want enjoy the real Artificial Intelligence in my life time. I am sure, it would be wonderful, unlike the one depicted in movies such as Terminator or iRobot.
In conclusion, it is OK to have documented beliefs or assumptions at the frontiers (as long as the beliefs are well documented), but it is a catastrophe to have undocumented (or unknown) beliefs at the very core of any scientific discipline.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your feedback. Let me introduce another thing. Hard science only relies on hard facts for advancing the scientific knowledge, where hard facts are facts that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt by using empirical evidence and sound rational reasoning. The proof is well documented and provided openly for any other researchers to falsify, if and when it is possible in the future. The facts are falsifiable, so they are open to be falsified, if they are flawed.
Soft sciences rely on soft facts (i.e. unproven beliefs that are concluded to be self-evident facts) for advancing the scientific knowledge. The soft fats are not proven and not even documented (hence hidden), to falsify them by future generations of researchers, if they are flawed. Questioning the validity of soft facts is perceived as if it is a blasphemy. The famous example for soft fact is “the Earth is static” – The scientists considered that it was a heresy to questing its validity.
If would be easy to question the validity if such soft facts are documented as unproven axioms or assumptions. If would be easy to falsify the proof, if a soft fact has a proof and the proof is documented. If everyone believes a fact is self-evident fact of nature (that needs no proof) and considers that it is a heresy to question its validity or ask for proof. As explained in my previous message, such beliefs could end up at the core of mature paradigms, if they were not detected for decades or centuries.
No one believes this kind of thing could happen in the 21st century. But this is exactly what has been happening in the computers science. Existing definitions for software components and concepts for CBD are rooted in 50 year’s old undocumented beliefs (that were considered self-evident facts). No one even knows what those beliefs are. How could anyone possibly falsify such unknown beliefs (i.e. soft facts)?
If anyone knows what are the facts that led software researchers to define the nature and properties of software components (without any basis in reality or facts and in fact clear contradiction to the facts and reality, we know about the physical components that are capable of achieving the CBD of physical products) for achieving real CBD for software products.
Saying “the Sun is at centre” 500 years ago offended then deeply entrenches conventional wisdom and common sense. Today similar situation exists in computer science and I have been enduring insults and humiliating snubs for offering hard facts to expose the flawed beliefs. I can provide numerous hard facts, most of them are openly listed in my web site.
Let me name just couple of them below in light of this fact: Even the greatest invention “Interchangeable Components” is useless without the enabling inventions of tools (e.g. Jigs, Castings, Moulds, Dies or Forgings) for creating the “Interchangeable Components”. Likewise, it is impossible to achieve real CBSD without the invention of real-software-component. Today no other GUI technology (e.g. from Microsoft or Apple) is capable of creating real-software-components – anyone can verify this hard fact. We created GUI technologies and tools that are capable of creating real software components for real COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBD for software - anyone can verify this hard fact by freely downloading our GUI Library.
Today requesting scientists to investigate such hard facts is treated as a heresy – Most researchers feel it is blasphemy to question the well accepted authority of soft facts (which they insist that no one ever dared to question for decades – They use excuses such as, if they are flawed beliefs, why no one else questioned).
The existing software engineering and CBSD paradigms have been evolving for nearly 50 years by relying on unproven and undocumented (or unknown) beliefs. If the beliefs are flawed (i.e. a lie), most of the scientific and technological knowledge created during past 50 years by relying on such flawed believes is invalid (i.e. lies). I am sure it is painful and hard to accept. But can we ignore investigating all the facts and evidence to discover Truth (and condemn future passion and hard work of future generation of researchers to waste on geocentric paradox of software engineering)?
I believe this knowledge of striking differences between hard sciences and soft sciences, not only help computer science but also other emerging scientific disciplines. For example, it prevents them from drifting in to a wrong path (i.e. a soft or pseudo-science) or pull them back to right path (i.e. by transforming each into hard science).
I am requesting scientists join me in this noble effort. I can’t do this alone. I can understand, if anyone doesn’t want to endure pain and insults, but I can’t understand why any real scientist try to derail my efforts by anonymously inflict pain (e.g. insulting or down voting my articles). I put all the evidence openly and more than happy to extent any help he needs in his investigation to discover Truth on his own. Anyone is welcome to expose or falsify, if there can find any flaw.
I am only asking real scientists to investigate facts and evidence to discover Truth on their own – This is the only way this kind of flawed beliefs can be exposed. The fact “the Sun is at the centre” is the most contentious, faced highest level of resistance and hardest to accept fact in the history of science. I am experiencing similar level of resistance to expose the flaws at the root of software engineering.
I worked passionately for over 10 years to make sure that I am right. This shows my respect for great researchers in our discipline of computer science and software engineering, if anyone feels that I am arrogant and disrespectful. Even if it is perceived as disrespectful, the fact is, it is disrespectful to knowingly lie (by hiding the truth). I meant no disrespect.
Best Regards,
Raju
Thank You Braun for the example,
Please see my reply at answer#8 above. I agree, it may be hard, especially at the frontiers of scientific knowledge. But I want to expose flawed belief that is not at the edges of the frontiers of scientific knowledge, but at the primitive origins (i.e. very foundation) of the scientific knowledge. This issues were settled nearly 400 years ago.
My goal is very simple: Make the experts aware that, it is wrong to blindly define the nature and properties of components for CBD, by ignoring reality and facts, and in fact clear contradiction to known reality and obvious facts about physical components for the CBD of physical products.
Is it possible to invent cure for infections, if scientists blindly define nature and properties of viruses or bacteria, by completely ignoring reality and facts, and in fact clear contradiction to known reality and obvious facts about viruses or bacteria?
Even if it is hard to believe, software researchers committed this monumental mistake. They just assumed software is different 50 years ago. During the past 50 years, no one ever questioned it and no one ever even tried to investigate the reality and facts (e.g. nature or properties) about the physical functional components and CBD of physical products.
Why the nature and properties of components is exception? Is it arrogant or disrespectful to question such baseless unproven assumptions?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Raju,
I understand what you are saying. There have been a few "given" facts that have been found to be untrue in recent years because they were assumed to be correct but had never been scientifically tested. One was that humans must drink 8 glasses of water per day, which has been proven incorrect.
However, I still do not understand how this applies to computer software. Software either works or does not work. If it works it then either delivers the correct results or incorrect results. There are many pathways that can be taken in programming to make physical components work. I do not see how there can be "flawed beliefs" in the product works correctly? However, by all means, elements, definitions, procedures, and policies should be clearly defined so that everybody is on the same page.
Dear Mr. Greeen,
The only reason for software engineering is crisis is spaghetti code (e.g. Big Ball Of Mud: http://www.laputan.org/mud/). Eliminating the spaghetti code increases productivity for building large and complex software systems by about 10 folds.
Design and development of any other large and complex product (except software products) is not infected with such spectator code. Also components are highly conducive to automation, hence possible to automate many error prone tasks that are being done manually today.
I already invented these technologies and available today. For example, see CASE-Tool that can automate creating and managing coupling (or communication) code to allow collaboration between the components in the application.
Total Cost Or Complexity of a product = (1) Cost of Designing and Building all the components (and evolving each of the components to exactly fit and function perfectly in the product) + (2) Cost of Coupling/assembling (i.e. creating communication) code and Managing the Couplings (i.e. communications) code as each of the components is iteratively redesigned or refined little-by-little to exactly fit and function perfectly in the product.
Designing and building any complex software product (or even newly invented physical product) is an iterative process. So, I feel the complexity or cost must reflect the iterative improvements, fine-tuning or evolutionary changes.
So far no one in the world gave me even a single valid reason, why software products can’t be build by literally assembling its components, where each component can be designed, build and tested individually outside of the product – Isn’t it how each and every large one-of-a-kind physical product (e.g. an experimental of a spacecraft or next generation jet-fighter) is built?
If given opportunity, I can demonstrate dozens of CBD applications created literally by assembling such replaceable components. I have been doing research on this for over 15 years, after I accidentally stumbled on to new kind of fascinating components, which turned out to be real software components.
Our junior engineers created thousands of real-software-components and hundreds of CBD-structures. I did that and still doing to understand what is going on and gain insights. You can find lot more information at Index page (that has links to many pages – each contains a section): http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html.
This is only a beginning. This only puts scientific research on right path. The discoveries of Kepler and Galileo just put scientific research on right path. It is impossible to predict what great discoveries or inventions lay ahead, when scientific research is progressing on the right path. For example, even such brilliant minds didn’t even speculated that a force of attraction might be the cause for planetary orbits.
No one can deny the scientific and technological progress mankind experienced during past 400 years. This could not have been possible, if the scientific research were not yet put on right path by exposing the flawed belief. It is easy to predict the scientific progress for next few hundred years, if the scientific progress on a wrong path (because there can’t be any useful thing to discover on any wrong path). If history is any guide, it is impossible to predict what great discoveries lay ahead on the right path. Even Newton could not have predicted the technological and scientific progress we now take for granted.
I hope, now you can understand why I am so disparate to expose those flawed beliefs (that puts the research effort on right path) at any cost. I risked my reputation, dignity and been enduring humiliations, not to mention money.
All the proof is ready. I invested 15 years of life's work on this research. All I need is just few days time from real scientists to demonstrate proof and evidence.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
I guess that was what I was getting at earlier. In my opinion, the code of today is bloated and unnecessarily long and complex because nobody takes the time now to figure out how to design it efficiently. Programmers have become lazy. Its like writing two pages of description in a report when one concise paragraph would have been better.
Dear Mr. Green,
The problem is not the programmers or software architects. It is problem with the very scientific knowledge. Since knowledge is flawed, no tools are created to support the reality. Let me illustrate this with an example.
Let’s assume, you need to create a City_GIS application that has only two components City_ATC (Air Traffic Control System) and City_ER (Emergency Response showing Ambulances): http://www.pioneer-soft.com/#/realairtraffic
In case of real CBD, you ask an engineer-A to build and test Ciity_ATC individually (as an independent application) and you ask an engineer-B to build and test Ciity_ER individually (as an independent application). You write just 3 lines to assemble each of the components into the application to see, if they fit perfectly and function properly in the application. Each engineer can refine and test his component individually (free from spaghetti code) until they fit properly and function perfectly.
But today no other GUI technology allows software engineers to implement such large GUI components in a Class definition. Hence they are forced to waste lot of time to merge the code bases of these components to create spaghetti code (e.g. Big Ball of Mud). It is many times more complex and costs many times more to redesign each of the components, until they fit properly and work together as expected.
Now you can see, even a simple application having 2 components is forced to start its life as a spaghetti code, imagine the complexity, if the application has few hundred such components and few dozen software engineers are working on the big ball of mud.
The real CBSD needs two things (1) tools and technologies to build real software components and for assembling components, and (2) knowledge of the nature and property of components to and experiences to positively identify features and functionality that can be implemented as replaceable components.
Any software architect can acquire this knowledge and experience with in few months – It is not hard, but can’t become an expert in a week. But you need one architect for a large product to partition the application into self-contained components, by identifying positively identify features and functionality that can be implemented as replaceable components. Once this knowledge and experience is acquired, architecture of large software systems is much simpler than today – Because CBD is more natural and intuitive, especially with assistance of proper CBD tools and technologies.
If an application has 200 components, each component can be designed, built and tested individually by an engineer (free from spaghetti code). It requires just 600 lines of code to assemble all the components. Each component can be redesigned or refined to ad more features or to keep up with evolving needs for each future releases (free from spaghetti code).
The problem is: The software researchers made even the first step in the wrong direction and continued for over 45 years on the wrong path. They blindly defined that any software parts having useful properties such as reusable or standardized are software components, without any consideration to the reality or fact (but based on wishful thinking to build software products by assembling reusable components, as hardware engineers build computers). By analyzing reality it is not hard to know that it’s just a fantasy: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html
Any scientific discipline would end up in such crisis, if researcher were to blindly define nature of properties of any thing (e.g. viruses or bacteria). Fortunately no one else did such a foolish mistake, so we have only one example – the Geocentric paradigm rooted in 2000 years old flawed belief. There will be a software engineering revolution within a year, if the software researchers learn and acknowledge the very obvious yet monumental mistake today.
Mr. Green, I was a great software programmer - Don't blame us :(. It was the scientists, who told us "there is no silver bullet" and forced us to write spaghetti code. Just trying to be funny, no disrespect intended. :-)
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Friends,
Please see the Tychonic system’s discussion of stellar parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system - Isn’t amazing reasoning and logic? Those are the characteristics of real scientists – observing the reality and struggling to make sense of it.
Surprisingly philosophers and researchers even in the 16th century exhibited 10 times more scientific reasoning, instinctual ability and vigor than 21st century fake software scientists. What are the chances every fake scientist ended up in computer science – Who rely on their title, credential or power rather than reasoning, facts or evidence to justify the flawed beliefs? Are there any real scientists in computer science?
No one had experienced or knows how to expose flawed beliefs at the very core (i.e. foundation) of a matured and deeply entrenched scientific or technological paradoxical paradigm in the past 400 years, after the struggles of Galileo and other experienced to expose the flawed belief at the root of then matured and deeply entrenched geocentric paradox.
I feel, only way such flawed beliefs can be exposed by demonstrating real software components for COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Software Design). I have all such evidence and contacted 100s of respected software scientists and government funded research organizations and each and every one of them refused to see the real thing. How can I demonstrate proof, if every one closes their eyes and ears by insisting that I am arrogant or disrespectful for requesting proof for so called self-evident facts (i.e. unproven beliefs)? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304109692_Is_it_heresy_to_request_software_scientists_to_not_violate_basic_well_established_scientific_processes_principles_proven_rules
Is it disrespectful or arrogant to request for an opportunity to show hard facts evidence to prove hard facts to expose flawed beliefs?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Thesis Is it heresy to request software scientists to not violate b...
Dear Friends,
Is it hard to understand this simple logic: Is it possible to invent fibre optic networks, if researchers blindly define nature and properties of light (without any basis in reality/fact)? Is it possible to invent electronic chips (Integrated Circuits), if researchers blindly define nature and properties of electrons (without any basis in reality/fact)?
How can software researchers invent real-software-components for real CBD if researchers blindly define nature and properties of components and CBD, not only without any basis in reality/fact but also in clear contradiction to the reality and facts we all know about physical components and CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products?
No meaningful technological progress is possible by relying on flawed scientific beliefs or on flawed scientific foundation. No one can invent any useful technological things by relying of flawed scientific foundation. Respected software scientists in place of influence or power not only wasted their efforts on advancing geocentric paradox of the software engineering but also condemning the future efforts of young researchers to waste on geocentric paradox of the software engineering. Both scientific and technological progress is held hostage by fake scientists.
This monumental waste of hard work and research efforts can be prevented, if they just spend few days on investigating facts, reality and evidence openly provided in my web sites or give me an opportunity. Unfortunately, most software scientists rather condemn efforts of young researchers to peruse such fool’s errand rather than admit their mistake or give me just few days of time. I am requesting real scientists to join me in this effort to transform computers science into real hard science.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Mr. Green,
Let me tell you, how far we are from software technology and scientific revolution. The hardest part for achieving real CBD is discovering the nature and essential properties of components by gaining sufficient knowledge and hands on experience and insights to positively identify each set of features and functionality (e.g. having high degree of certain kind of synergy) that can be implemented in each of the replaceable components for the application. In case of non-GUI applications, it may take anywhere between few weeks to couple of months training and practice to acquire this kind of knowledge and expertise for the software designers. It is not very hard compared to earlier models such as UML (Unified Modelling Language) or OOA/OOD.
Hence, software designers and architects need just few months of training. All the necessary basic tools and technologies are already available. There are no missing pieces that can prevent real COP for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for software). It just needs few months of time to improve them and/or customize them, as or when required. More powerful tools and technologies can be invented, but that are neither essential nor can prevent COP for achieving real CBD. Software technology progress sufficiently more than 20 years ago, but there are few missing pieces – Those pieces were not invented and built not for the deficiency in technological advancements but the pieces were not necessary without the invention of real-software-components and real COP for achieving real CBSD.
It is not very far, is it? All I need is to build awareness, so that software researchers willing to investigate the facts to discover the nature and essential properties of the components and the true essence of real CBD.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Friends,
What I realized must be shocking to any real scientist. I got to share this: What is the only difference between the hard sciences and the soft sciences? The hard sciences deal with objective facts and reality such as nature and properties of physical things or physical phenomena. The soft sciences deal with subjective things and trying hard to see, if they can find a way to measure and/or quantify the subjective things, for example to improve our ability to predict the subjective nature or phenomena.
'Measure what can be measured and make measurable what cannot be measured.' … Galileo Galilee
The hard sciences deal with objective things and reality that are measurable, repeatable, demonstrable and predictable. The hard sciences deal with immutable physical reality or facts or physical phenomena (i.e. only our perception of reality or facts may change or evolve, but fact and reality never changes).
The soft sciences deal with subjective things and uncertainties of reality or unpredictable phenomena (e.g. influences of religions, culture, charismatic leaders, technological progress and human instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.), which are hard to measure, predict or demonstrate. But goal is to employ proven scientific methods, principles and processes to acquire knowledge such as to gain insights and understanding, for example, improving the probability of predictions or improving the approximation of measurements.
The fact is: The soft sciences call themselves sciences, because their goal is to employ proven scientific principles and processes to gain knowledge and insights about the subjective things and unpredictable phenomena or reality (e.g. complex influences of religions, cultures and human instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
One thing in common for hard sciences and soft sciences is: Both are trying to gain insights and knowledge of nature of things and reality by employing proven basic scientific principles and processes. The difference is hard sciences deal with objective things and phenomena, while soft sciences have to deal with subjective things and uncertainties of reality or phenomena (e.g. complex influences and interactions of religion, culture and instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.).
On the other hand, computer science not only ignored reality and facts but also blatantly violated basic scientific principles and processes when dealing with quintessential objective things such as nature and properties of components for CBD or neurons for AI. Isn’t it insult to soft sciences, if any one insists that computer science is a soft science, because soft sciences neither ignore reality and facts nor blatantly violate basic scientific principles and processes.
The nature and properties of the physical components essential for achieving real CBD of physical products is immutable hence can be and must be discovered. Blindly defining the nature and properties for software components and CBSD is a monumental mistake by ignore such immutable reality and facts such as the essential properties of the components for achieving real CBD.
Isn't it shocking for any real scientist? - This error in the attached PDF already cost trillions by delaying technological progress in software engineering and AI for decades!
P.S: Please keep in mind that it is unfair to compare the maturity and elegance of work done by tens of thousands of brilliant and highly mature researchers for 50 years on the geocentric paradox of the software engineering with few years work of just one armature accidental researcher’s effort on Heliocentric model of the software engineering, especially in the perception of an expert deeply indoctrinated for decades into the geocentric paradigm of the software.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science