Dear Mr. Goddard,

Thank you for the reference. Kindly read my question one more time.

I said:

The purpose of modern scientific method is perfecting the quality of knowledge by finding and eliminating imperfections and/or anomalies. Scientific method doesn’t offer a recipe, hints, and guidelines or impose restrictions for doing research to acquire new knowledge, but provide tools to keep scientific research in the right path by detecting mistakes that can divert research efforts into a wrong path.

Dr. Popper theory of empirical falsification proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.

For example, we learned valuable lesson in 17th century that it is blatant violation of basic scientific principles to evolve a dominant paradigm (e.g. geocentric paradigm) by relying on unproven flawed presumption (e.g. the earth is at the center). For example, the dominant paradigm (aka geocentric paradigm) had been evolved for 1800 years by relying on 2300 year-old pre-paradigmatic presumption the Earth is at the center.

Computer science repeated the same kind of mistake. Existing dominant paradigm for software engineering has been evolved for past 50 years by relying on pre-paradigmatic foundation comprising flawed unproven presumptions. Any research efforts would be diverted into a wrong path, if the efforts start relying on such flawed theories or presumptions. Scientific method provides tools for detecting such mistakes, when research efforts diverted into a wrong path.

Also, it is a blatant violation of basic scientific principles to take a stand that is contrary to evidence. Software committed this mistake. Software defined that CBD/CBE is using reusable ingredient parts such as steel, cement, plastic, metals, and alloys. Please refer to software architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture

Civil engineering is the only major engineering that doesn’t construct buildings by assembling components. Attached PDF briefly summarizes the reality of CBD/CBE of complex products.

There is no scientific method for proposing a hypothesis. Scientific method doesn’t impose any limitation of imagination or creativity. But, scientific method requires providing a falsifiable proof for the hypothesis to be accepted as a proven theory (e.g. to be relied on it for acquire more and more knowledge). Scientific method requires discarding the proof, as and when valid counter evidence is discovered. It is wrong to treat unproven presumptions (e.g. the earth is at the center, or CBD/CBE is using reusable parts) and rely on them as self-evident facts.

P.S: Those who do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat it. The modern scientific method has been perfected since 17th century comprising of basic principles and rules incorporated by great philosophers of science and brilliant scientists based on valuable lessons and wisdom gained from past mistakes (to minimize pain due to such mistakes by detecting them early). Research often involves making many mistakes by experimentation or exploring many paths speculatively, but no one wants to waste his efforts or hard work on wrong paths too long.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Goddard,

Let me present my personal perspective: The purpose of scientific research is to acquire valid BoK (Body of Knowledge) or theoretical foundation comprising of facts, observations and theories.

The purpose of engineering research is to rely on the valid BoK (Body of Knowledge) or theoretical foundation to invent useful things.

Hence, Computer Science may have started as sub-domain of mathematical theory for computation, but now software has many problems that stood unsolved for decades, which include the infamous software crisis and real computer intelligence (equivalent to neural networks in brains of animals by emulating neural networks).

These problems can never be solved without acquiring valid BoK, and it is impossible to acquire such valid BoK by blatantly violating basic principles or rules of scientific method. See attached ValidKnowledge.PDF

The infamous software bugs alone cost hundreds of lives last year alone and over trillion of dollars each year: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-software-failure-caused-1-7-trillion-in-financial-losses-in-2017/

Achieving real CBD/CBE for software can eliminate over 90% of the bugs and 90% of the costs. Also increases productivity by 5 times. Also such software can be redesigned 10-times faster at one-tenth cost to create new releases. Also possible to create many times more complex software than practical to address many times more complex problems. I already secured 6 patents from USPTO for such solutions, which not includes pending patents.

You said: To your question, computer science is not considered a field of science. The term is really a misnomer. Computer science is more correctly computational linguistics, not science. So it's very likely that one would find violations of scientific principles in so-called "computer science."

This proves my case 😊. Software researchers concluded that it is impossible to eliminate the infamous spaghetti code, by relying on invalid BoK acquired by violating scientific method. My contention is that those problems can be solved by acquiring valid BoK about reality such as nature and characteristics of components that are essential for achieving real CBD/CBE. I have proof and requesting for an opportunity.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_bring_awareness_of_systematic_failure_and_violation_of_basic_scientific_principles_to_the_notice_of_scientific_community

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Goddard,

Let me add to previous reply. Let’s be pragmatic. The purpose of research in applied sciences (e.g. computer or medical sciences) is to solve problems. The purpose of theoretical research is providing valid theoretical foundation necessary for solving the problems. The purpose of engineering research is inventing solutions by relying on the theoretical foundation.

Computer science does lot of theoretical research for which scientists are awarded about US$1 million AM Turing award (considered Noble prise of computing). Just like researchers of basic sciences they don’t get any patents or invent new useful things. Computer science failed and refused to provide theoretical foundation for certain problems by conforming to scientific method.

You said: To your question, computer science is not considered a field of science. The term is really a misnomer. Computer science is more correctly computational linguistics, not science. So it's very likely that one would find violations of scientific principles in so-called "computer science."

I am challenging this paradigm. I don't agree with this paradigm and artificial limitation imposing on research and creativity without any basis in logic.

The purpose of theoretical research in any discipline is to acquire and accumulate valid BoK (Body of Knowledge) for solving problems using any combination of proven tools for acquiring Knowledge such as mathematics, scientific method, philosophy, epistemology or logic. The goal or objective is acquiring valid knowledge or theories essential for solving problems by using any such proven tools.

Best Regards,

Raju

Placebo effect. Medical sciences often treat placebo effect as if it was a real type of effect. It simply is not.

A placebo effect is an effect where we do not understand the cause, but we believe or claim to understand what "is not" the cause.

Webster's: "improvement in the condition of a patient that occurs in response to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment used"

- in response to a treatment

- cannot be considered due to the treatment.

It's magic, not science. If the cause is found, and proven, then it's no longer a placebo effect, it becomes a real effect with a real cause.

A placebo effect can only exists as long medical science cannot identify the cause.

And... If we know that we don't know the cause, it's not a placebo effect, it's simply a real effect with an unknown cause.

Every effect has a cause. Placebo effects are scientific bunk.

Placebo effects are often attributed to the mind, the beliefs of the patient, the cultural aspects of the treatment, without proof. Once proof exists, they are no longer placebo effects, they become real effects caused by the beliefs of the patient or the cultural aspects of the treatment.

But in most cases, in most "scientific" clinical trials, there is no attempt to understand cause. All positive effects on the placebo arm of a clinical trial are classed as placebo effects. The trials goals - approval of the medical arm of the trial, conflict with goals of understanding benefits observed on the placebo arm. In addition, the clinical trials have little interest in understanding benefits not provided by the treatment on the medical arm of the trial. Those are out of scope and ignored or excluded from the "scientific" results, often unpublished as a result.

To your health, tracy

Dear Mr. Kolenchuk,

I didn’t understand, why your post related to the question of this thread. This thread is about blatantly violating scientific method, when it is impossible to acquire valid knowledge by blatantly violating basic principles of scientific method?

Mathematics is appropriate tool for acquiring certain kind of knowledge such as computational theory or other theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_computer_science

The scientific method can play no role or not applicable in acquiring such knowledge, so not possible to violate basic principles of scientific method.

On the other hand, mathematics can’t play any role in comprehending the reality that includes understanding the nature and characteristics of components that are essential for achieving real CBD/CBE. Likewise, we need to understand the functioning and role played by neurons for emulating neural networks.

The only tool for acquiring such knowledge is scientific method. We end up acquiring invalid knowledge, if we violate the basic principles of scientific method. Hence, those two problems stood unsolved for decades, since software researchers tiring solve those problems without acquiring valid knowledge.

To prove my point, I solved one of the problems of achieving real CBD/CBE for software. I already secured 6 US-patents and more patents are pending. I have been struggling for many years for getting an opportunity to demonstrate my proof. But software researchers refusing to look at the proof.

We use scientific method to acquire valid knowledge about nature, characteristics and to understand reality about wide range of physical things such as animals, trees, bacteria, fungi or viruses. Mathematics plays little or no roles, so it is not a right tool or applicable. Certain problems in software can’t be solved without using scientific method.

Best Regards,

Raju

Step 1 of the scientific method "Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)".

Placebo effect is measured and used in analysis without a definition. Placebo effect is only defined by the absence of evidence, by the absence of cause, and has no scientific basis. If the cause can be found or proven, it's not a placebo effect. When it is used in medical scientific research, it violates the scientific method.

Placebo effect is not a measurement of the subject of inquiry, it is a measure of "not the subject of inquiry".

Measuring "not elephants" has no scientific validity when accounting for elephants.

Measuring "effects not caused by the treatment" - even if the treatment is a placebo - has similar scientific merit. None.

Dear Mr. Goddard,

Thank you. I have been doing research on this problem for 16 years, ever since I accidentally stumbled onto new kind of components for achieving real CBD/CBE. No one starts this kind of research by design, but due to serendipitous event, which happened when I have time and money to focus on the research fulltime. It has been an exciting journey, except when trying to get opportunity for demonstrating proof.

Unfortunately, many experts feel offended, when such presumptions are challenged. You are very rare exception. I was kind of scared to click on the email link to open and read your response, because I often faced sarcastic insults or personal attacks. It is a pleasant surprise that you understand my perspective.

My evolving understanding is (that may change by new evidence and experiences): When we need to solve a technological problem such as achieving real computer intelligence by emulating neural networks, we must start with acquiring and accumulating necessary knowledge for creating theoretical foundation. We must use appropriate set of tools (e.g. scientific method, mathematics or philosophy) to acquire each piece of knowledge such as theory or fact.

Once we create the solid theoretical foundation, which could also change based on new evidence or empirical falsification, we can start on engineering research for inventing useful solutions using Java, Lisp or by inventing new programming languages appropriate for quantum computers or emulation of DNA or Neural networks. After all, we are interested in finding solutions (not solving a puzzle by imposing artificial limitation such as only using mathematics). Unfortunately many software researchers feel that computer science must be limited to mathematics.

P.S: Please refer to: Research Proposal Computer Science (Software) Must be Considered as an Indepen...

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Hi.,

Kindly refer this link:

https://philpapers.org/archive/MAXSRK

Dear Miss. Gomathy,

I have very narrow focus on solving technological problems, and more particularly software problems that stood unsolved for decades and presumed to be unsolvable such as eliminating notorious spaghetti code for solving infamous software crisis by achieving real CBD/CBE, or achieving real computer intelligence by emulating functioning or neurons for building artificial neural networks.

I have achieved real CBD/CBE that eliminates notorious spaghetti code from software design and engineering and already secured 6 patents from the USPTO, and more patents are pending. I am struggling to find real scientists who could investigate evidence I have accumulated for past 16 years to prove that my inventions work, but I am facing this kind of problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX4MKIDvXLM predicted by Thomas Kuhn in his book (please see attached PDF).

Almost no software researcher willing to investigate evidence and facts to determine the truth. In fact, most researchers feel offended by the facts. For example, IIIT-Hyderabad banned me when I try politely show evidence that existing presumptions about so called components for CBD/CBE is flawed. They banned me for making a valid claim that I have secured patents for real software components for achieving real CBD/CBE. This is the pathetic situation we have to face, when challenging conventional wisdom.

Best Regards,

Raju

Any field that doesn't follow the scientific method is not science. And any person that does not follow it is not a scientist.

Dear Alexander Simonelis,

Thank you. I have been struggling for years to convince researchers of computer science that it is wrong to blatantly violate basic principles and proven rules of scientific method, when acquiring knowledge that falls under realm of science.

For example, acquiring valid knowledge about nature, characteristics and functioning of viruses, bacteria, DNA, neurons, animals, plants, molecules or components certainly falls under realm of science.

My argument is that it is not hard to eliminate notorious spaghetti code by inventing real components that can achieve real CBD/CBE, if we acquired valid knowledge about the role played by the components and characteristics and functioning or nature of physical components that are essential for achieving real CBD/CBE.

I backed this argument by inventing such software components that can achieve real CBD/CBE for software. Another supporting and verifiable fact is that, I already secured 6 patents for creating and using such real components for software. I accumulated huge evidence and facts during past 16 years of my research for solving infamous software crisis.

My goal has been to solve software crisis, which has been costing trillions of dollars to the world economy each year. No one can solve software crisis without acquiring valid knowledge by violating scientific method.

Likewise, I am sure many problems such as real computer intelligence can be achieved by inventing artificial or virtual neurons for building or emulating neural networks. Mr. Goddard suggests other potential inventions such as quantum mechanics, DNA or nervous systems. It opens new and right unexplored path and it is hard to predict what great inventions lay ahead.

For example, Kepler and Galileo opened new unexplored right path by proving that the Sun is at the center. Even such great minds didn’t even speculated the reason such as gravitation, why planets orbiting the Sun. Brilliant researchers could make great discoveries when research efforts are put on right path.

How do you overcome this kind of foolishness, if researchers fiercely argue that it is OK to acquire knowledge by ignoring and violating basic principles or proven rules of scientific method? No technological problem can ever be solved by relying on invalid knowledge essential for solving the problem. It is impossible to acquire certain parts of knowledge essential for addressing certain problems by violating basic principles or proven rules of scientific method. Until such foolishness is realised, such problems would stay unsolved even for centuries.

I am sure, this is going to be recorded as the most foolish or stupidest (and certainly the costliest) mistake in history of science: Every software researcher has been brainwashed into believing a lie that “computer science is not a science”. Almost all the software researchers and experts have been blindly and foolishly defending such lie. Certain large technological challenges eluding software researchers for decades or technological challenges stood unsolved due to this foolish mistake. Such mistakes costing trillions of dollars to world economy each year.

I was humiliated, insulted are banned, when I tried to convince software researchers that it is wrong to violate scientific method when acquiring knowledge essential for addressing a problem falls under realm of science. How can we reason with fools?

Best Regards,

Raju

Math is not technically part of science because it doesn't deal with experiment. But it is generally thought of as part of science. Computer science is akin to math.

Dear Alexander Simonelis,

In my view, each of them such as mathematics, science, logic, epistemology or philosophy is a tool for acquiring valid knowledge.

To address any complex technological problem, we must gain valid knowledge using appropriate tool for understanding many aspects and/or or answering many questions.

If knowledge required for understanding an aspect or answering a question for solving the problem falls under the realm of mathematic, we cannot acquire valid knowledge by violating basic principles of mathematics.

If knowledge required for understanding an aspect or answering a question for solving the problem falls under the realm of science, we cannot acquire valid knowledge by violating basic principles of scientific method.

Certain software engineering problems require knowledge that falls under the realm of science. So such problems stood unsolved for decades. Such problems can never be solved, even for thousand years without realizing this mistake.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Goddard,

Your last reply is very concise and well articulated the things I am struggling to explain. I shared your message in few of my emails since it is very useful to explain the point I want to make. It helped me a lot, so like to say Thanks.

I greatly appreciate, if you could summaries the following point and also points made in the attached PDF and also MS-Word objectively as a neutral judge or jurist.

P.S: I will also send this as a private researchGate message.

It is wrong to violate basic rules or principles of mathematics, even for scientific disciplines that don’t use mathematics such as botany, zoology, virology, bacteriology or mycology. Insisting that “botany or zoology is not mathematics” doesn’t make it OK to violate basic rules or principles of mathematics. For example, it is wrong to define an axiom 15*3 = 40, since any such additions, multiplications and subtractions fall under the realm of mathematics and the axiom blatantly violate mathematical principles.

Likewise, nature and characteristics of components and the role they play in the phenomena of achieving real CBD/CBE certainly fall under the realm of science. Even if “computer science is not a science”, it is wrong to define axioms or first principles (in the pre-paradigmatic foundation) that are obviously in violation of basic principles and rules of scientific method. If it is wrong to define 15*3 = 40 in biology, why is not wrong to define reusable parts that can’t be assembled by any stretch of imagination are components and using such so called components is CBD/CBE for software.

Insisting that “botany is not mathematics” doesn’t make it OK to define basic axioms in violation of mathematical rules and methods. Likewise, insisting that “computer science is not science” doesn’t make it OK to define basic axioms (e.g. about components or neurons) in violation of basic principles of scientific method.

Best Regards,

Raju

A science such as physics, is a model which is an approximation of a reality we could never fully reach because we study it by means of phenomens, without being able to know the objects in themselves. In this example of physics, and as in the general case of theories, the history of each science shows that an authentic scientist have to be against science, to untrust and break models or theories, to improve them at a higher level (including for unresolved problems by extending theories). These kind of fundamental discoveries belong to a science which is the science of sciences, the knowledge theory, the meta-science or metaphysics/gnoseology. And there is a science which is not a science that is thus very helpful for this subject, and this is computer science.

That is at the heart of the subject of a book I am writing (in french) about computer science epistemology and design.

Dear Mr. Waraschitz,

I agree with you. I often add a disclaimer or caveat (see attachment) when I am presenting my discoveries and patented inventions that give form to my discoveries or theories. The problem with computer science is that, most software researchers feel that it is a blasphemy to use scientific method to gain valid knowledge to solve software engineering problems. I am struggling for many years and have been sending legal notices to bring attention to this problem. The following explains my understanding of theoretical research and engineering research:

The research efforts can be divided into two different kinds (i) scientific research for studying things (e.g. about physical things and phenomena) to gain or acquire valid knowledge and insights, and (ii) engineering research for inventing useful things by relying on the valid knowledge and insights that was acquired by the scientific research.

There are 2 sides (i) theoretical science side, which is to study things to acquire and accumulate valid knowledge (and insights), and (ii) applied science side, which is to invent useful things by relying on the knowledge and insights.

Computer Science started as a subdomain of mathematics, but it is wrong to impose such artificial limitation. Computer Science only has a few decades of life and requires gaining insights and knowledge about certain aspect of reality for addressing certain kinds of problems, which stood unsolved for decades due to limiting computer science to mathematics.

In certain cases, computer science can be logic and mathematics applied in a specific aspect of reality. For example, physics is also the application of mathematics in a specific aspect of reality (to gain knowledge and insights about things and phenomena in the physical world). For example, in certain cases even botany (or bioengineering) uses statistics to gain insights (e.g. that can be applied to improve predictions, productivity, quality and yields). Increasing productivity, quality and/or yields are certainly patentable engineering inventions or innovations.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju

Thank you for your nice, interesting and encouraging answer, including your caveat.

We share the same point of view. Precisely, the two sides you are talking about result from the distinction between analytical and synthetic representation elements and the two corresponding process. Being able to evaluate the kind of concept, either analytical or synthesis, allows to say that a possible progress is just a superficial modification or a real improvement. In consequence, without knowing the real matter of any kind of knowledge, it is sufficient to say whether you will just solve a problem or you will be providing an innovative solution, offering a new perspective, new functionalities, and transforming some existing issues into obsolete problems. This is the virtuous spiral of progress. And this a first key issue to understand in depth when designing.

Hey Raju, I will have to translate my book in English so you may be lecturer ! (it is about 200 pages but it will be about 450 pages. In any case, may I say I would be interested to make this work in a University where I could teach too about design).

It is really a so much interesting and fundamental thing to transform and invent representation with concepts, and that, in any kind of domain. Including, of course, politics or health, and with a dramatic impact. Just because of this new jungle of science introduced with computers and its epistemology to come, and also our chance to be the pioneers in this field after a few decades of programmation.

Kind regards,

Laurent

Dear Mr. Waraschitz,

Good luck with your book. Based on my experience spanning past 10 years, I don’t think software researchers would be receptive to scientific approach. If it helps, let me share my patented inventions to eliminate notorious spaghetti code. Please see attached PDFs.

Certain problems in software can never be solved, as long as software researchers acquire valid BoK (Body of Knowledge) about reality. It is impossible to acquire valid BoK about reality by blatantly violating scientific method. Software researchers have been refusing to acquire valid BoK about reality by conforming to basic principles and proven rules of scientific method.

The infamous software crisis costing trillions of dollars each year and already cost hundreds of lives. The root cause for the infamous software crisis is notorious spaghetti code (and design). Eliminating notorious spaghetti code (and design) eliminates the infamous software crisis.

It is one of the most simplest problem to solve, but no one wants to solve. My extensive research spanning nearly 18 years resulted in gaining insights into the reality about nature and characteristics of physical components that are essential for achieving real-CBD/CBE of physical products.

What is the Objective Reality for the CBD/CBE? What is the objective reality of (or meant by) components and CBD/CBE (Component-Based Design and/or Engineering) in the context of engineering disciplines? Examples for Component-based engineering disciplines include mechanical, aerospace and electronic or computer engineering, where each large or complex product is built by literally assembling components.

On the other hand, Civil engineering never claimed nor pretended to be a Component-based engineering, since Civil engineering doesn’t build large or complex products (e.g. buildings, skyscrapers or bridges) by assembling components. But unfortunately, architects and designers of software refer and/or consider designing, architecture and/or engineering of buildings is Component-based engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

I found the following interesting quote, which aptly applicable to computer science:

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”….Nikola Tesla.

Today the stature (or our perception of reality) about the CBD/CBE (Component Based Design or Engineering) for software has no relation to the reality CBD/CBE of physical products such as cars or computers.

Software researchers’ defined flawed axioms substituted logic for experiments and/or observations, wander off through inductive logic after inductive logic and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Best Regards,

Raju