Dear Raju,

Let me start by saying that you are raising highly challenging questions and making wise considerations.

I very much appreciated your reference to some of Galileo Galilei's brilliant ideas. To an extent they remind me of Wittgenstein's idea that when there is no place for doubt certainty does not make any sense either. In this sense, I do not like Scriptures because they give no place to doubt. If, for example, Galileo Galilei had not challenged established "truths", it might be the case that geocentric theory had endured for longer than it endured.

I think that the real source for the existence of scientific knowledge is, say, the irritation of doubt, or our desire to get closer and closer to reality and the unknown. 

In other words, "irritating" questions and doubts lie at the heart of scientific knowledge and progress (see, for this respect, C.S. Pierce' s work). Irritating questions or doubts are those whose response lead us to a better knowledge of reality whatever and the unknown. If, Galileo, for instance, had not doubted of geocentric theory he would never come up with heliocentric theory. This idea can be applied to any theory. Because of this all existing knowledge is there to be tested and falsified.

I think that even though any scientific research looks for a better knowledge of the unknown and to be closer to reality, the unknown will endure forever. Suffice it to say that when we know a bit more of the unknown and reality we come to see problems of which we are not aware shortly before. Of course any accumulated  knowledge, often presented in handbooks, is there, as you say, to be tested, and hence, to the possibility of being falsified. Echoing your idea, I would also say that any scientific researcher has a moral obligation to falsify any piece of knowledge by showing or demonstrating counterevidence. As Pooper once remarked, conjectures and refutations are the fabric of what science is made of. Of course, the irritation of doubt presupposes one's imagination and rational/logical reasoning.

To sum up, the irritation of doubt, our quest for meaning, and our desire to know the unknown are part and parcel of a true scientific research. I say true because to try to test what is untestable and cannot be falsified is no scientific research at all. 

Unfortunately, developmental psychology (let alone psychology in general) if full of examples of researches that try to test what is untestable because it is true by definition. Think, for example, of a experiment designed to test that Piaget's formal operational thinking appears only after concrete operational thinking. Given that formal operations are operations on concrete operations, then to try to test that the former appears only after the latter is a pure waste of time, because, by definition, formal operations cannot appear first than their concrete counterparts The field of psychology if often full of examples of, say, are a kind of  "sacred cows" in that they do anything they can to avoid their theories falsified. This partly explains what the neo-Popperian Paul Meehl (1978, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology)called "the slow progress of soft psychology"

I hope I have got your questions and that this help.

Best regards,

Dear Dr. Orlando,

            Thank you for your insightful comments. The sciences may be divided into two kinds (1) Hard sciences dealing with knowledge objective in nature, such as objective reality about nature and properties of physical things such as animals, bacteria, viruses, trees or physical components (the lifeblood of industrial ag), and (2) Soft sciences such as physiology that must often deal with knowledge subjective in nature (i.e. feelings, instincts, love, desire or preferences) that are error prone due to preconceived notions and open for more than one perspectives.

“Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.”  … Galileo Galilee

                Hard sciences deal with such unchangeable objective reality. Of course, there could be more than one perspective for the nature and properties of bacteria, but we all know that there is just one right perspective or answer (i.e. unchangeable objective reality), weather we know the unchangeable objective reality or not. By debating and challenging each perspective moves our collective knowledge closer to the unchangeable objective reality or the Truth.

              My dispute with rest of the software research community is that: The way they defined the nature and properties for the components for software is fundamentally flawed. This prevented them from inventing the real components for the software. There is no dispute how valuable the real components are. The components are the work horse or life blood of the mighty industrial products.

           My contention is that the nature and properties of the physical components is unchangeable objective reality. The definitions for the real software components must be rooted in the knowledge of the unchangeable objective reality such as nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared each and every known physical component.

             Unfortunately, the software researchers made no effort to know the unchangeable objective reality about the components or the CBD (Component Based Development). It is not hard. But no one ever even tried.

“Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.” … Galileo Galilee

            To gain knowledge about things, we must identify aspects that are objective reality. Then try to discover the answers that are closest to the objective reality. By testing and challenging these answers push our knowledge and wisdom closer to the objective reality.

            As in psychology, software also need to deal with certain subjective aspects, such as definitions of real software components to invent real software components for maximizing the productivity. The purpose of engineering research is inventing useful things by relying of the scientific knowledge (i.e. objective reality). The goal is maximizing the productivity by making it simpler or more user friendly – It is kind of subjective (e.g. individual preferences are subjective).

            For example, if real components can increase productivity by 10 folds and if the error in subjective definition is up to 20%, then we can comfortably estimate that the productivity gains must be at least 8 folds. If the error in subjective definition is about 20%, then we can comfortably estimate that the productivity gains must be about 8 folds. Testing and challenging could increase the productivity.

            Hence, testing and challenging the theoretical knowledge about the objective reality pushes our knowledge closer to the Truth. Likewise, testing and challenging the subjective concepts improves our wisdom help us improve out inventions (or solutions).

Dr. Orlando, You said: Unfortunately, developmental psychology (let alone psychology in general) if full of examples of researches that try to test what is untestable because it is true by definition.

            Unfortunately, the software researchers taken the same approach. They are insisting that the nature and properties of the so-called software components are True by definition. This foolish mistake resulted in the infamous software crisis, by preventing the research for discovering essential knowledge such as nature and properties of the real components for inventing real software components.

              To gain knowledge to find a solution, we must identify aspects that are objective in nature. Also try to find aspects that are objective in nature, when given conditions are met. We may not be able do anything, if something has no such objective aspects. If there are objective aspects, we can employ scientific method for gaining necessary knowledge that must be valuable for inventing the solution.

             Also any debate or dispute between two well qualified persons A & B is good. Because such debate could make A see the perspective of B, and B see the perspective of A. For example, if we argue about psychology, I would learn many new things in psychology. On the other hand, my intense research on real software components gain unique perspective of philosophy of science. I use that dimension, which might help you thing about the nature of you knowledge in general and your perspective knowledge in psychology particular.

             I am sure, you may already have traveled all the paths, but I could push you into paths that are less traveled to gain different insights in those less traveled paths. What I mean, is challenging my knowledge would help me gain more insights and wisdom. Making things that are subjective in nature into more objective needs to know the conditions or circumstances. That is, if the conditions are met, the subjective things can be measurable or predictable.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Ragu,

Thank you for your comments on my answer to your questions. I can follow you in several respects. Even though, I believe more in the circle of sciences than in a radical opposition between hard sciences and soft sciences (see, for this, respect, Piaget's views on this issue). To substantiate the circle of sciences, note, for example, that physicists often appeal to mathematics to present and formalize their findings and theories. As physicists are living beings, they may be studied by biologists qua human living beings. Mathematicians' physicists' and biologists' behavior, such as their interests, motivations, and personalities may be studied by psychologists. As this brief digression shows, sciences are to be seen as interrelated not as separate realities. 

At times, you look like as a pure empiricist. Am I correct?  Critic R. Horgan once remarked that all empiricism in the world cannot salvage a bad and unclear idea? Do you agree on this?

I believe that there is an objective reality. But what would be the meaning of an objective reality if it were not known by anyone?  Piaget, who also believed in the existence of an external reality, cogently remarked, I think, that more important than the existence of such reality is what we can do with it. Note also that what is an objective reality depends upon the beholder's eye and knowledge. Suffice it to say that a straight rod immersed in a glass of water appears to those who do not know some physical laws as objectively broken and, in reality, it continues to be straight. The French epistemologist Gaston Bachelard once said that there are not pure facts but only constructed facts. How do you react to this? Note also that any knowledge is objective and subjective at the same time. Subjective because a knowledge whatever belongs to a knower, individual, or subject. Objective because it refers to an external or internal reality. 

Best regards, Orlando

Dear Dr. Orlando,

            You said: At times, you look like as a pure empiricist. Am I correct?

            You may be right. I am not pure empiricist, but more leaning to empiricism. I believe, science has its roots in empiricism. I believe, any scientific discipline goes through both phases.

“Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.”  … Galileo Galilee

            The observations and experiments are essential to create the basic BoK (Body of Knowledge). Then rationalism and falsifiable theories are used to fill the gaps.

            My contention is that the existing paradigm for so called software components and CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) is nothing different from the geocentric paradigm of software engineering – Rooted in flawed assumptions.

            The whole knowledge in the software books in the context of the so-called software components and CBD/CBE is nothing more than fiction like the epicycles and retrograde motions. Anyone can observe the retrograde motions, but now we know what went wrong.

            I have been doing research on this particular area since year 2001, ever since I accidentally stumbled onto a fascinating kind of components (that are very close to the real components). Based on this knowledge, I proposed the definitions or descriptions for the real software components and CBSD, which has been constantly challenged for many years that helped me gain deeper insights.

            I believe, real components for software not yet ready to from empiricism. So I am working more as empiricist. When someone challenges my observation such as components are special kind of parts that can be assembled or disassembled, the proof can be found in the reality. For example, if I say Dolphins give birth to babies, while if any one says Dolphins lay eggs, the authentic evidence can be found by observing the Dolphins.

            Even the father of psychology is empiricist. He observed the human behaviour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4.

            For example, the theories like string theory or big bang theory needs more rationalism, until empiricism can explain the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ. I feel, both are complimentary. Some tames one is suitable, while other times another is suitable.

            Of course, my understanding of scientific method may be biased by recent experiences and kind of problem I am trying to address. But I believe, any fledgling discipline need to accumulate very large valid BoK having many gaps, before it can move away from the empiricism – I feel CBD/CBE needs sound BoK rooted in the observations of the reality and experimental results for software to match the reality.

You said: Note also that what is an objective reality depends upon the beholder's eye and knowledge. 

            I agree. But if his perception of reality is challenged from all direction, struggling to defend or understand his perception likely pushes his wisdom closer and closer to the objective reality. That is the reason, anything in the books must be open for challenging from all directions.

            al-Haytham said 1000 years ago: The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and ... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.

            Many areas of software is lot more mature and rooted in sound theoretical foundation. But the CBD/CBE for software is rooted in fiction – This is the area my research that requires acquiring empirical evidence.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri