Dear Friends,
I am looking for an example for “subverting dominant paradigm” other than the 400 years old example, where heliocentric paradigm overthrown then dominant geocentric paradigm. The 16th century dominant paradigm (i.e. geocentric paradigm) had been evolved for 1800 years until 16th century and accumulated huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on 2300 old received views (axioms or beliefs).
Each paradigm paints a perception of reality by using large enough BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for the paradigm (e.g. by relying on a set of basic axioms, facts, first principles or received views).
The huge BoK for 16th century dominant paradigm accumulated for 1800 years (by relying on 2300 years old received view “the Earth is static at the centre”) that painted a altered perception of reality (that is now being referred to as geocentric paradigm), which is depicted or illustrated in the FIG-1 at: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html
The FIG-4 in the above web page illustrates our understanding or perception of reality today (referred to as heliocentric paradigm to distinguish from earlier paradigm), which is supported by the huge BoK mankind accumulated for past 400 years. Today research community accepted without any reservation that the Sun is at the centre.
In this case, subverting a dominant paradigm (e.g. by a new paradigm) imply proving that the earlier dominant paradigm is fundamentally flawed or illusion. For example, each of the countless epicycles and retrograde motions of the 16th century dominant paradigm were merely illusions as illustrated in figures FIG-2 & FIG-3.
It is now proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the pieces of knowledge in the BoK for geocentric paradigm were merely illusions, because they were created by relying on flawed received view (i.e. the Earth is static at the centre). In other words, the huge BoK accumulated for 1800 years was proven to be false or invalidated.
Hence, a paradigm can become a dominant paradigm only when the paradigm accumulates huge BoK comprising of many pieces of knowledge for painting a perception of reality, where each of the pieces of knowledge in the BoK consistent with other pieces of the knowledge in the BoK, which together paints the overall perception of the reality of the dominant paradigm.
When I searched for examples for “Subverting Dominant Paradigm”, I could not find any right example but I found many wrong examples such as this: https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-subvert-the-dominant-paradigm?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa
The above webpage says: For example, the “Positive Psychology movement” changed the old view of psychology being only there for treating mental illness (= dominant paradigm), to a paradigm in which psychology was used to make everyone’s life better, peaceful or more fulfilling.
What paradigm “Positive Psychology movement” subverted. We are still using Psychology for treating mental illness. The initiator of the movement, Martin Seligman found another way of using (or another use for) Psychology, but the BoK existed for Psychology to treat mental illness was not invalidated by proving it to be fundamentally flawed. No one said that, it is wrong to use Psychology to treat mental illness. So there is no contradiction or conflict with the older paradigm.
Therefore, a new paradigm can be created without invalidating an existing paradigm. This kind of thing (“Positive Psychology movement”) is not an example for “subverting a dominant paradigm”, because no paradigm was subverted. A new paradigm for accumulating BoK for a new unexplored area was added, which together expanded the discipline of Psychology.
The BoK for both paradigms are still being expanded individually in respective areas and/or together, where BoK for each paradigm is being used for addressing different set of issues (and, in fact, there is significant overlapping in the BoKs of the two paradigms).
Subverting imply overthrowing old system of principles or axioms by ushering in new set of basic principles or received views that are in clear contradiction to then dominant old received views (e.g. as communism overthrow Russian monarchy in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution ushering in new set of rules and laws based on new set of basic principles that were in clear contradiction to earlier basic principles that were basis for earlier rules and laws).
If no paradigm is subverted, how can it be called “subverting a dominant paradigm”? Of course, “Positive Psychology movement” opened doors for new previously unexplored dimension, where exploring the new unexplored dimension for accumulating BoK can be considered as creating a new paradigm.
But the new paradigm didn’t subvert the existing paradigm. No one said that, it is wrong to use Psychology to treat mental illness. The new paradigm created new BoK for increasing quality of life (e.g. mental peace or happiness) for people, who are not mentally ill.
Other wrong example for subverting dominant paradigm, I found include: Newtonian paradigm was subverted by Einstein’s general relativity. It is far from Truth. They are purely complimentary paradigms in the process of expanding of our knowledge, for example, into unexplored and previously unknown dimensions.
Einstein’s general relativity didn’t subvert the Newtonian paradigm. No one proved Newton’s discoveries such as universal gravity is an illusion (as the observations of epicycles were proven to be illusions by heliocentric model).
Kepler’s 3-laws explained the planetary orbits very accurately (i.e. extremely close to the objective reality we know today). But he didn’t explain why the planets are moving in such orbits. Newtonian discoveries such as universal gravity and three laws of motion explained why the planets are moving in such orbits.
It is normal part of scientific progress. Mankind makes discoveries or observations. Then scientists discover laws of nature for explaining the discoveries or observations.
Likewise, Newton made discoveries such as universal gravity, which says that there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass. But Newton didn’t explain why there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass.
Einstein’s theory tried to explain why there exists a force of attraction between two bodies having mass. In the process, Einstein opened doors into new previously unknown dimension for expanding our knowledge, where the BoK accumulated in the new previously unknown dimension can be considered as a new paradigm.
Each such discovery of previously unknown dimension answers previously unanswered questions while creating newer unanswered questions. For example, Newton’s discoveries such as universal gravity provided explanation for Kepler’s laws, but created new unanswered questions such as why there is an attraction between bodies having mass.
Einstein’s discoveries say mass can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass (these things are experimentally proven to be facts). But we don’t yet know the scientific laws (or laws of nature) that govern such conversions. We don’t know what mass is made of or its internal structure.
Researchers have been struggling to answer such unanswered questions by using theories such as String theory for finding new unknown or unexplored dimensions for finding answers.
This kind of creating BoK for new paradigms are part of normal science. It is not necessary for a new paradigm to subvert an existing paradigm. Hence such new paradigms co-exist and expand in respective dimentions, but do not subvert any existing paradigms.
Subverting a dominant paradigm requires exposing a flawed dominant paradigm, where the BoK for flawed dominant paradigm accumulated for long enough period by relying on fundamentally flawed set of received views (e.g. the Earth is static at the centre).
Any paradigm can become a dominant paradigm, only if has accumulated a huge BoK knowledge for painting a consistent perception of reality. For example, the huge BoK in the 16th century (accumulated for 1800 years) painted a consistent perception of reality, which is now referred to as geocentric paradigm.
Any such dominant paradigm can be and must be subverted, if it’s BoK is accumulated by relying on fundamentally flawed received views or principles such as 2300 years assumption “the Earth is static at the centre”.
I discovered another example of such flawed dominant paradigm that can be and must be subverted: Existing CBD/CBE (Component Based Engineering or Design and Development) for software products has accumulated huge BoK for past 60 years by relying on flawed 60 years old received views such as “parts that are conducive to be reusable are components for CBD/CBE of software products”.
Such received views are clear contradiction to the reality we know in the context of CBD/CBE of countless products we know and use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, office or medical equipment such as printers, MRIs, X-Ray, scanners, machines or machinery for factory to name a few. In this context, no part can be a component, if the part cannot be conducive to be assembled and disassembled.
Today software research community treats such obvious facts about the components (in the context of CBD/CBE of products) are heresy and resorting to personal attacks. Today software researchers feel offended by obvious facts such as reusable parts that can’t be assembled are not components in the context of CBD/CBE of products (as saying the fact that “the Sun is at the centre” infuriated research community in the 16th century).
I am hoping one or more examples for “subverting dominant paradigm” would be helpful in my struggles to subvert the existing flawed dominant paradigm for the CBD/CBE of software products.
I greatly appreciate any such examples, where a flawed dominant paradigm was subverted by exposing flawed BoK filled with pieces of knowledge (that are perceived illusions like epicycles and retrograde motions).
Kindle keep in mind, subverting a dominant paradigm requires replacing or overthrowing the dominant paradigm by invalidating large chunks of BoK accumulated for the subverted paradigm. For example, heliocentric model invalidated flawed geocentric paradigm in 17th century by invalidating large chunks of BoK accumulated for geocentric paradigm.
In the context of scientific and engineering disciplines, a dominant paradigm can be subverted, if and only if, the BoK for the dominant paradigm is accumulated by relying on received views that are flawed.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Good to hearing from you. You didn’t read the question. If no dominant paradigm is subverted, then it is not an example for “subverting dominant paradigm”. You need to list the names of the paradigms that was subverted.
For example, an example given above “Positive Psychology movement” opened a new unexplored dimension (or field) for exploration to create new BoK (Body of Knowledge) without subverting existing dimension for Psychology, where the existing dimension for Psychology comprises of BoK (Body of Knowledge) for addressing mental illness.
Likewise, Einstein’s discoveries opened a new unexplored dimension (or field) for exploration and expanding BoK in the new field. All the BoK accumulated based on Newtonian mechanics is not proven to be an illusion, as the heliocentric model proved most of the BoK created for geocentric paradigm was illusion (or invalid).
Another example for subverting dominant paradigm (that is not in the field of science) was 1917 Bolshevik revolution ushering in new set of rules and laws based on new set of basic principles that were in clear contradiction to earlier basic principles that were basis for earlier rules and laws). For example, paradigm of democracy replaced (or kind of subverted) earlier paradigm of monarchy in many other nations.
You only listed various theories for exploring previously unexplored dimensions to accumulate BoK. But, there was no static continents paradigm supported by huge BoK to subvert by Continental drift model. For example, there was geocentric paradigm supported by huge BoK, which was subverted by heliocentric model.
Kindly notice the difference between these two things (i) creating a new paradigm by discovering a new unexplored dimension for accumulating BoK and (ii) subverting a dominant paradigm by invalidating large sections of huge BoK accumulated for the dominant paradigm. Only the second thing is an example for subverting dominant paradigm. But the things you listed fall under first category.
Dr. Peter, after working for few months, I filed another patent for tools and mechanisms for transforming existing kind of parts into pluggable modules. I am hoping, such enabling tools and mechanisms provide smoother transition from existing CBD/CBE paradigm (by taking smaller steps for increasing degree of modularity for getting closer and closer to replaceable self-contained components) to real CBD/CBE paradigm that requires using replaceable self-contained components.
Dr. Peter, I am hopping that the pluggable modules will be recognized as the interchangeable components of the software products in the future. I feel, the enabling tools and mechanisms are extremely valuable. So I filed provisional patent for very comprehensive disclosure to create a portfolio of patents (see attachment). If you join me, we could make lot of money :-) by subverting existing dominant paradigm that is rooted in 50 years old flawed received views.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
The truth “the Sun is at the centre” faced hostile resistance, because 16th century research community made up their mind that “the Earth is static at the centre”. The theories such as “continental drift” didn’t face any hostile resistance, because there was no dominant paradigm such as “static continents paradigm”.
Research proposals or theories such as “continental drift” or “String Theory” don’t face hostile resistance such as personal attacks, when research community not made up their minds about such things or have no strong opinions.
Please read this outstanding synopsis for the famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science of 20th century: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html.
The first paragraph of this synopsis of the influential book says: A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind.
[Mistake-1] Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...
[Mistake-2] To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations.
[Mistake-3] Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
Dr. Peter, As you can see, the aspects of “subverting dominant paradigm” is clearly documented by Dr. Kuhns book. Don’t forget your vicious ;-( personal attacks in 2013 and 2014 for my proposal for “pluggable-oriented CBD/CBE model”. With the exception of one or two (non-software neutral observers), almost everyone gave humiliating, patronising or condescending comments.
You and other software experts resorted to personal attacks against me (e.g. when I stated facts such as, no part can be a component in the context of CBE/CBD of products, if the part is not conducive to be assembled), because software community have been brainwashed for past 50 years and/or made up minds such as “software parts that are reusable are components” or “It is impossible to invent software parts that can be plugged-in and un-plugged (e.g. as computer parts are plugged into motherboard)”.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Thank you. A paradigm is different from a dogma. A paradigm is supported by large enough BoK (accumulated for long enough period), where the BoK (Body of Knowledge) paints a complex perception of reality. A dominant paradigm implies huge BoK that paints solid perception of reality (e.g. if you contradict the reality, you are perceived to be breaking proven laws of nature). When no dominant paradigm is subverted, how can it be subverting a dominant paradigm?
I feel, the 16th century Geocentric paradigm was a dominant paradigm, because it was supported by a huge BoK, where the BoK accumulated for 1800 years by relying on 2300 years old received views. The existing CBD/CBE paradigm for software products is supported by a huge BoK, which is accumulated for past 50 years by relying on 50 years old recived beliefs, where the BoK for CBD/CBE must be 10 to 20 times more than the 16th century BoK for the geocentric paradigm.
Dr. Peter, there are 2 kinds of risks for such disruptive inventions (1) the technology risk – The technology doesn’t work as promised. (2) The flawed perception risk – even when the technology works better than promised, the researcher fails to convince the research community that the technology would work as promised (by overcoming the flawed perceptions of prevailing dominant paradigm).
Based on past 18 years of my unique experience, I know for fact that, we don’t have first risk. We only have the second risk. I don’t see any other way, except dragging taxpayer funded research organizations to court to investigate the evidence to expose the flawed perceptions of existing dominant paradigm. So I am hoping to do that before the end of this year.
P.S: I hope you would back me in my efforts. Please see attached PDF. Keep in mind, as a researcher it is your moral obligation to find and uphold the Truth.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Thank you for making me think in the following new angle.
Can you name the existing CBE/CBD paradigm for software products? No one aware, it is rooted in pure hypothesis “parts that are conducive to be reusable are components and CBD/CBE is using such components”.
Mankind tends to conclude “unanimity of bias is an objective fact”.
No 16th century researcher was consciously aware that then dominant paradigm was rooted in hidden “geocentric theory”. The geocentric name was given may be in 17th century to distinguish it from newly proposed hypothesis “the Sun is at the center”.
The research community in 16th century was not aware that then dominant paradigm was rooted in an unproven Theory: The Earth is static at the center (they taken it as an objective fact).
Today software research community is not consciously aware that: Existing dominant paradigm was rooted in hidden unproven or untested hypothesis (we conclude such received views as objective fact).
No one even can name the seed assumptions at the root. Can you?
No assumption or received belief can become an objective fact, just because no one questioned its validity. Unanimity of bias is not an objective fact in scientific disciplines.
A theory can be an objective fact, only when it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (and as long as no one can falsify the proof and evidence used for proving the fact). For example, the Sun is at the centre is a proven fact. Another proven fact is: There exists a force attraction between any two things having mass.
The geocentric paradigm was rooted in hidden bias or assumptions (i.e. no one was aware of the assumptions at the root). Likewise, existing CBD/CBE paradigm was rooted in hidden biases or assumptions (i.e. no one was aware of the flawed assumptions at the root).
If you disagree, can you name the assumptions/biases at the root?
Isn’t it interesting? No one even know the assumptions (or biases) that formed very foundation of BoK for today's dominant CBD/CBE paradigm for software products? Is it Science/Religion? Can you build sound BoK by relying on such flawed biases?
Dr. Peter, you gave me good list of examples for hypotheses, which helped me realize subtle differences between paradigms rooted in a hypothesis or paradigms rooted in dogmatic received views (or hidden biases).
P.S: The problem is not flawed assumptions. The problem is hidden biases or ignorance of the assumptions.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
Any one must agree that: As the 16th century researchers were unconscious about the tacit assumption at the root of then dominant paradigm, it never crossed the consciousness of the software community that the definitions for components are mere assumptions, where the tacit assumptions are at the root of the existing dominant CBD/CBE paradigm for software products.
Even after pointing out, you have trouble seeing hidden or tacit assumptions.
I am the first person to name it reusability-oriented paradigm to differentiate it from proposed new model named replaceability-oriented, where replaceability imply ability to disassemble and reassemble.
P.S: I am sure someone must had made such stupid comments when then dominant paradigm was named geocentric paradigm. We give a name to avoid writing 10 paragraphs to point a thing or a person. If we don’t have a name, how do you describe any thing such as an elephant, me, you or my city Hyderabad?
Best Regards,
Raju
Again Raju, I can't help but think that all the energy you put arguing on ResearchGate instead of producing a usable library at least demonstrating the usefulness of your component conception to the community is a big waste of time...
Funny to read you and Peter though!
Dear Mr. Martin,
Why do you think I am not trying my best to create a usable library at least demonstrating the usefulness of your component? I invested substantial amount of money for creating a usable library. I already created that.
It is extremely hard to market such solutions based on such library by over coming huge flawed perception of risk. The businesses are by nature are highly risk averse.
There is no real risk for our discoveries or inventions (that are based in our discoveries), except this huge unjustified perception of risk. The real risk for our discoveries and inventions is 0%, but they are perceived to be 200% risky.
Almost everyone feels that our discoveries are invalid, impossible and everyone he/she consults would confirm or reinforce his/her flawed perceptions, wrong opinions or received beliefs.
For example, if I convinced a large company to use our inventions of replaceable components. To be sure, if the top manager calls few of his friends (who are software experts and he respects them) about our claims of building software by assembling components.
Each of them feels, I am lying due to their prejudice and preconceived notion. None of them never try to see my presentation, but they feel they knew the Earth is static at the center (so to speak) and any one contradict such view must be lying. I have lost several dozen opportunities, because of such so called experts.
Let’s assume you started building a complex system that would take 2 years and US$10 million. Would you use my library, when experts you respect say that I am lying? If such library doesn’t work, you would loose your job.
Your project would never complete, loosing a valuable business opportunity (if you fail to finish your project). Why any one would take risk, if they feel it is risky? Even there is no real risk, how is it possible to overcome such perception of risk?
I can’t explain countless such issues, we have been facing everyday. We are exploring all possible ways. I didn’t post in the ReserachGate for nearly 6 months, because I was busy with other such activities. I am making progress, but I don’t know when I can make a break through.
Since there is no real risk (i.e. our discoveries can’t be invalidated, and our inventions don’t fail to work as promised), the only real risk that can prevent us (i.e. Pioneer-soft) from becoming successful is our failure to expose and eliminate the flawed perceptions and prejudice. We can be successful, only by attacking and exposing such flawed perceptions. We must find an effective plan for exposing the flawed perceptions and successfully execute the plan.
In fact, the reality and facts we discovered are obvious and self-evident to even the laymen such as: No part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and dissembled, in the context of CBD/CBE (Component Based Engineering and/or Design) of countless products (we know and use every day) such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, airplanes, office or medical equipment such as printers, MRIs, X-Ray, scanners, machines or machinery for factory to name a few.
Unfortunately, such obvious self-evident facts are perceived to be heresy (by breaking revered laws of nature such as the Earth is static at the center) in the context of so called CBE/CBD of software products by the community of software researchers and experts or engineering. Even when there is no real risk, the first impression of heresy creates a wrong unjustified perception of risk (i.e. prejudice and wrong perception of risk is 200% for businesses that are risk averse).
P.S: Why don't you try to call few software experts (whom you respect) and ask what they think about my claims for CBD/CBE? I am sure they would tell that I am a lier, without trying to know anything.
Even if you decided to use our solutions in your project, I am sure they will convince you that I am a liar. If you try to explain my side, they say you are insulting their intelligence. You have no idea, what I face every day
Best Regards,
Raju
"Let’s assume you started building a complex system that would take 2 years and US$10 million. Would you use my library, when experts you respect say that I am lying? If such library doesn’t work, you would loose your job."
What you need to do is get your "technology" out in the wild as an Open Source project and see what happens! If it's good, well documented and really improves the way software systems are produced, it will get picked, first by enthusiasts, and later by more mainstream users. And of course, in the beginning, it won't be used for multimillion dollars projects but for pet projects of company small experiments.
That's exactly what happened to countless projects like:
- Linux,
- OpenCV,
- CGAL,
- GDB,
- Puppet,
- CMake,
- Git,
- etc.
Anyway, good luck on your crusade...
Dear Mr. Martin,
Every project that become successful, there are 20 such projects failed. They became successful because they are good ideas, not because they are built at fraction of the cost.
Over 100 companies are capable of building products such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkdIn or WhatsApp, but they didn’t create them. If I get a great idea for a great product, I would certainly build it. If it addresses unmet marked needs and when there is traction, VCs invest on the product based on traction.
It costs tens of millions of dollars to market such product. Only 1 in 10 companies that attract VC investment become successful. Most on the ideas did fail before that is funded.
You must read the history of Eli Whitney’s failure for his greatest invention “interchangeable components”. This single invention is created for transforming then fledgling USA from net importer of goods and IP (Intellectual Property) to net exporter of goods and IP (Intellectual Property) in few decades.
This made the fledgling USA manufacturing powerhouse surpassing then European powerhouses. Eli Whitney didn’t become successful in his life time even with the backing of the US President Thomas Jefferson. Let me quote President Kennedy, when he hosted 49 Nobel Prize recipients at the White House on April 29, 1962.
“I want to tell you how welcome you are to the White House. I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” - John F. Kennedy
P.S: If you are so frustrated just reading my posts, just Imagine the nightmare I have been living for over a decade. Only thing that keep me going is that, I can give up any time and happily retire (if I can’t bear any more).
Best Regards,
Raju
" It costs tens of millions of dollars to market such product. Only 1 in 10 companies that attract VC investment become successful. Most on the ideas did fail before that is funded. "
Again, the beauty of Open Source is that you don't have to start with more resources than you already have... not tens of millions!
Dear Mr. Martin,
Over 95% open source projects fail. If I get an idea and I feel it has a chance to become successful, I will do it. Keep in mind, “the moving assembly line” was used because, Ford already have his factory to test it.
If he were a laymen like me, I am sure, no one would had adopted it. It is extremely complex convince conservative risk averse factories to use such idea.
Also each person have certain hidden talents, such as ability to sell, ability to see hidden market needs, ability to convince and luck or timing. All these things play role in success of each of the open source products. Each of us stuck with our strengths or weaknesses.
Mr. Martin, I am not ruling out your suggestion. But I can’t count on that alone. I am exploring that option as well. For example, We are building few solutions for next generation problems such as web based Industrial-IoT, Sensors, 3D-SCADA, 3D-Digital Twins and 3D-Geospacial Information Systems, hoping such GUI components would be required in the near future.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You said: Inventing a name for it = good idea. Now all you have to do is list the properties.
A paradigm doesn’t have any properties. It is supported by a huge BoK accumulated for decades. The countless concepts in the BoK paints a complex perception of reality such as the thing illustrated in FIG-1 at: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html
Property of Heliocentric model is: “the Helio (i.e. Sun) is at the center”. It was not accepted for 100 years, not because researchers didn’t understand the property.
They understood the property, but refused to accept that it is True (because of then prevailing myths). Researchers accepted Heliocentric-model after subverting the huge BoK accumulated for 1800 years for then dominant paradigm.
Property of replaceable-oriented model for CBD/CBE of products is: No part can be a component for CBD/CBE of products, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled. You understood the property, but refusing to accept that, it is True (because of myths prevailing today).
A dominant paradigm is a shared perception of reality (or shared wisdom) painted by hundreds of pieces of knowledge and experiences (in the BoK accumulated for long period of time such as epicycles and retrograde motions in case of the geocentric paradigm).
My web sites have all the information to systematical expose each of the shared biases in the BoK for existing dominant paradigm for CBD/CBE of products. We need to paint another reality as in FIG-4 by providing new BoK to bring gestalt shift.
Dr. Peter, I gave you an example to illustrate the difference between understanding and accepting. If law of a nation says, a person is homeless poor, if he has less than 10 villas.
If you were a judge (being sworn to uphold the law), you are obligated to treat a person having 9 large villas as homeless poor, irrespective of you agree or disagree with the law. You can’t pretend that you haven’t understood the law, just because you can’t agree with the law.
If you don’t implement the law by treating him as a homeless poor, you abdicated your sacred duty as a judge (you must stop pretending to be a judge). Likewise, you must stop pretending to be a researcher or scientist, if you feel you are not obligated to uphold the Truth (without imposing your prejudice or bias) for seeing objective reality.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter,
You said: Raju has mastered vaporware business economics!
You are an expert on creating FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) - The most disgusting people in the research community.
Your typical behaviour. Instead of admitting mistake or to cover-up ignorance, you resort to such insults or FUD. We are not selling any software. We can’t become masters in vaporware without selling or offer to sell a product or software.
We are a services company and we offer our services based on our patented inventions. They pay only, if they are satisfied with our work.
We want to provide services only to demonstrate our replaceable components. But unfortunately FUD experts like you are the obstacles, as explained in my earlier messages.
Let me ask you a simple question: Are you a researcher or scientist? If you are a scientist, you must be ashamed for abdicating your sacred duty of upholding the Truth by investigating the reality: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_compel_scientists_to_fulfill_their_sacred_duty_if_they_blatantly_abdicate_their_sacred_obligation_of_upholding_the_Truth
You must be ashamed of calling your self a scientist, while defending untested and unproven myths about components and CBD/CBE (as if the myths are sacred tenants). Unfortunately software research community is full of poseurs or impostors like you.
You are not being paid to teach your students to put them is right path, but you are knowingly pushing them into the geocentric paradigm of software.
I told the same things to dozens of researchers in government funded research organization such as NSF.gov, NITRD.gov, SEI/CMU and DoD etc., for their gross negligence and incompetence. I dared them to sue me, if they thing I am wrong. Also I threatened that I will sue, if they keep ignoring me. Now I am raising money to keep my word, because they have ignored me.
I hoped that they would sue me, because it costs 1/5th to defend my self in the court than dragging them to court to prove their gross negligence and incompetence. If they sue me, burden of proof is on them. The burden of proof would be on me, if I sue them.
P.S: I don’t need to sell vaporware, because I closed profitable software Services Company after making enough money, which has been comfortably funding my 18 years of research and very comfortable retirement. I had many offers to come back into software services, but I was not interested (if it doesn’t help demonstrate my inventions).
Of course, it is hard to understand things like passion, perseverance and moral obligations to upholding the Truth for poseur, who are pretending to be researchers or scientists. They try to get gratification by spreading FUD or using insults.
If you not a poseur, you must know this: It is a sacred duty and moral obligation of real scientists to uphold the Truth for getting closer and closer to objective reality.
I know you for 5 years and you made no attempt to uphold the Truth, which is essential for improving a paradigm that paints our perception of reality that can get closer and closer to the objective reality.
It is pathetic, if you think I can’t do business for living. What I am doing here is purely for my research. I also look after family agriculture and real-estate investments for making a living? If I want to do research, am I prohibited from doing any other thing for living?
Taxpayers paid your salary to do research and uphold Truth and teach your students right path (but you are pushing them into the geocentric paradox of software). Do your duty.
Bye,
Raju
Dear Mr. Martin,
I am disappointed that you recommended Dr. Peter’s insult. We are the only company in the world, who can create this kind of applications as pluggable-components: http://pioneer-soft.com/OSMDrones/PS_OSMDrones.html (you can rotate it by holding Alt and dragging mouse).
One can assemble dozens of such pluggable components in minutes to build complex 3D-geospacial applications. We will be the only company in the world that can build such 3D-GIS (especial applications) by plugging-in such replaceable components.
Unfortunately, no customer asks for features they never have seen before. But when customers start asking for such features, our patented inventions are the only source for 3D-GIS or SCADA: http://pioneer-soft.com/#/scadaDashBoard (these are more than year old examples, but we made substantial progress). We have many 100s of such examples, but not hosted on our web-site.
But future cyber physical systems, IoT, Sensors or Digital Twins require modeling real-time 3D representation of machinery and infrastructure. We will have our day in the Sun. These things are not vaporware. We cab build such solutions in hours. We ask our customers only if they continue to use our solutions. They don’t need to pay any money, after trying our solutions for few weeks, if they don’t like them.
We have over 1000 reusable Java classes for presenting SCADA elements, Drones, Bridges or Buildings for building custom pluggable components that can be assembled. We can build a reusable Java class 2 to 3 man days for presenting any kind of GUI component.
P.S: Any researcher feels offended by facts or reality, is not a researcher (but a poseur or impostor pretending to be a researcher). Dr. Peter is a bad researcher, because he feels offended by facts (e.g. about components for CBD/CBE of products).
Keep in mind that a competent researcher tries to provide counter evidence, if he disagrees with a fact. Only an incompetent researcher feels offended and/or resort to disgusting tactics such as insults.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Friends,
The purpose of scientific research is pursuit of discovering absolute Truths for acquiring BoK (Body of Knowledge) for objective reality (that paints a paradigm). Often it is not possible to discover absolute Truths, so pursuit of absolute Truths often includes getting closer and closer to each of the absolute Truths, until it is possible to discovering the absolute Truth.
It is the sacred duty of every researcher and scientist to uphold the objective Truth, in the pursuit of discovering absolute Truths to accumulate BoK for objective reality. Anyone claiming to be a researcher or scientist is an impostor/poseur, if he/she feels has no such moral or ethical obligation of upholding the Truth in pursuit of objective reality.
The BoK (Body of Knowledge) existed in the 16th century painted complex perception of reality that is depicted by FIG-4 at: http://real-software-components.com/technologies/noble_cause.html All the experimental and empirical knowledge we have accumulated during past 300 years prove that it has 99% error.
The FIG-4 depicts existing BoK and Newtonian mechanics paints our current perception of reality. It may not be perfect, but all the experimental and empirical knowledge we have accumulated during past 300 years prove that it has less than 1% error. Of course, real researchers working hard to improve our BoK to get closer and closer to objective reality.
In the 21st century, we have theories or hypotheses for almost every thing. Our knowledge often (not always but often) advances by eliminating or reducing errors or imperfections in the theories or hypotheses for getting closer and closer to objective reality.
The pursuit of absolute truth is accomplished by upholding the objective Truths, which is essential for eliminating imperfections (e.g. by empirical falsifications). Poseurs or impostors can’t understand this simple logic behind the "scientific method", which has been perfected by great scientists and philosophers of science for centuries, for example, for eliminating imperfections.
Isn't it obvious that, serious research requires serious scientists having passion and perseverance. We can’t expect quality discussion essential for serious research from bozos. Bozos resort to insults and diversion tactics to hide their incompetency.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science