Dear Friends,
Isn’t it dangerous to having flawed knowledge, if the knowledge successfully prevents us from seeing the objective reality or truth? Not knowing about a thing compels the researchers to explore all unknown possibilities (or options) such as each of the unknown paths possible with open mind (without any preconceived notions and prejudice). They are more open to counter evidence or challenges for their theories by engaging in civilized discourse to see other perspectives with open mind.
Having wrong or flawed beliefs (that are perceived to be sacred self-evident facts for eternity) have quite opposite effect. The researchers feel offended by any counter evidence or descending views that appear to be conflicting the sacred beliefs (i.e. flawed negative knowledge). Many researchers resort to vicious personal attacks or humiliating insults, if any one requests for valid evidence or proof in support of the sacred belief (considered to be inalienable self-evident fact for eternity).
For example, saying the Truth “the Sun is at the center” in 16th century offended common sense and then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. We know what happened to many philosophers such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo for questioning the validity of the sacred belief “the Earth is static” and for trying hard to expose the flawed belief. Galileo had to accept the lie (i.e. the Earth is static) to save his life.
The harder and harder they tried to question the validity of the sacred belief hostile resistance and reprisals became fiercer and fiercer. No one ever questioned the lie “the Earth is static at the center”. But the Truth “the Sun is at the center” faced unprecedented fierce and hostile resistance and reprisals during 16th and early 17th century, since the truth contradicted the 2300 old sacred belief concluded to be inalienable self-evident fact for eternity.
As illustrated in the above example, the flawed belief had insidious evil devastating consequences. Such negative knowledge acts as black-hole consuming research efforts by adding negative knowledge to become bigger and bigger dominate paradigm. We can find such example even in 21st century. Having wrong knowledge about a thing is insidious and far more harmful than having no knowledge about the thing. Kindly allow me to illustrate this using insidious and harm caused by flawed knowledge about the components that are essential for achieving CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Engineering and Development or Building) for products.
Let me briefly summarize the objective reality and facts: Primarily 2 kinds of parts are used for designing, engineering and building countless products we know such as cars, computers, airplanes, ships, cell-pones, TVs, Bikes, machines or machinery for factory. They can be broadly grouped as (1) reusable ingredient parts such as metals, steel, cement, alloys, plastic, wood, leather, specialized material silicon-metal-oxide (e.g. to make computer chips), lithium-ion or nickel-cadmium to make batteries, and (2) parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in such as CPU, DRAM, CD-Player, Gear Box or Engine), where such parts are widely referred to (named or known) as components. Hence, any part that is not designed and/or not conducive to be assembled is not a component.
In fact, the later (i.e. 2nd kind) of parts are made by using the 1st kind of parts. To be clear, we can divide the components into 2 kinds (i) basic components having no sub-components and (ii) container components built by using sub-components. The components and other kind of parts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, each of the basic components is built by using reusable and/or ingredient parts such as specialized material silicon-metal-oxide (e.g. to make computer chips), lithium-ion or nickel-cadmium (to make batteries). Hence, reusable or ingredient parts are essential for building the components.
Many large components are created by assembling multiple sub-components, where each of the sub-components is built by using reusable and/or ingredient parts and/or other subcomponents. Hence, each of the products is built by assembling many components, where each of the components is created by using reusable, ingredient parts and/or other basic components (as sub-components).
Kindly keep in mind that any part that is not conducive to be assembled (or plugged-in) is not a component in the context of designing and building countless product (e.g. cars, computers, airplanes, TVs, machines of machinery for factory). Software researchers not yet invented such very useful kind of parts that are designed or conducive to be literally assembled for software products. Software researchers have been misleading or fooling themselves and the world that they have been already using components by referring to reusable or other kind of useful parts as components, where the reusable or other kind of parts are not conducive to be assembled by any stretch of imagination. This negative or flawed knowledge about the components giving a false impression that components for software is already exist. No one sees any need to search for Truth, if everyone concludes that he already knew the Truth.
The flawed belief that reusable parts are components preventing the invention of real components (i.e. very useful kind of parts that are conducive to be assembled) by masking the Truth and by skewing or altering our perception of reality (as the belief “the Earth is static at the centre” altered mankind’s perception of reality until 16th century). It is not hard to invent software parts that can be assembled (or plugged-in), but no effort is made (i.e. no evidence can be found that anyone ever even tried) to invent such real components for software.
Hence, today every large or complex software is built by using only reusable parts and/or ingredient parts. On the other hand, each of the large physical products is built by partitioning into components, sub-components and so on, where each of the components is designed, built and tested individually. Once each of the components is built and tested individually, the product is built by assembling all the components.
Even in 21st century, any effort to expose insidious and evil effects of such untested and unproven 50 to 60 years old flawed beliefs have been facing hostile resistance and personal attacks. No one ever tested or even questioned the validity of the beliefs, but the beliefs are fiercely defended as sacred self-evident facts for eternity. Isn’t flawed knowledge is far more insidiously dangerous than having no knowledge at all about things such as “which planet is at the center” or “what is the essential function of the parts/components that is essential for achieving CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Engineering and Development or Building) for products”?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
There is little profit to knowing nothing or having flawed knowledge (or perhaps even discussing which is better); obviously, much harm could result from the latter. A more productive—or at least, optimistic—query is to question how one might develop reflective practice, which includes learning from failure. Here are two resources that discuss this: (i) Reflective Practice, a large presentation available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275953248_Reflective_Practice; and (ii) Embracing Failure, a short article available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254583164_Embracing_Failure.
Presentation Reflective Practice
Article Embracing Failure
There is no one choice better than the other. Whether it is no knowledge or flawed knowledge is irrelevant. Both can create positive outcomes, and both can create negative outcomes. If a person with no knowledge is dedicated to seeking the truth about a given situation, for knowledge sake, then the amount of starting knowledge does not matter. If a person with flawed knowledge about a given situation is openly and willingly dedicated to actively learning about that situation, the starting point of flawed knowledge need not be of concern. In time the truth will reveal itself. Flawed knowledge is not the problem, but the use of that flawed knowledge.
The question is not which is better. The questions are; “do the ones with flawed knowledge recognize it as such”; “how attached are we to what we currently know?”; “are we willing to believe that we do not know everything about everything?”; “what is it about our attachment(s) that makes us unwilling to let go of them?”.
The problem lies within the power we give that belief (system), its subsequent value we place on our lives because of it and lengths we will go to preserve it. Because what happens when our belief system becomes shattered through knowledge or experience? What are we left with then?
Possibly, the realization that that belief system was not ours to begin with. We may not think this way, but it appears we act it. Whether we know it or not.
Dear Friends,
Any knowledge that clouds, blurs or masks/hides reality/truth is a negative knowledge. I feel negative knowledge would have insidious evil effects on the research efforts. For example, Kepler and Galileo had no need to struggle for so long and hard, if mankind hadn’t accumulated so much negative BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on flawed belief “the Earth is static” for 1800 years (i.e. between time of Aristotle 300BC and 16th century).
Even in 21st century, negative BoK accumulated for past 50 to 60 years is clouding/blurring or masking/hiding reality/facts. For example, this BoK so far successfully prevented invention of solutions for infamous spaghetti code and software crisis. Today, except design and development of software products, no other complex product is affected by spaghetti design/code.
The designers of these products successfully eliminated the spaghetti design/code very useful and special kind of parts, which are designed and/or conducive to be assembled (where the special kind of parts are widely referred to or known as components). Any part that can’t be assembled is not a component.
We can divide parts used for building products (e.g. cars, computers, airplanes, cell-phones, machines or factory machinery) into two kinds (1) ingredient parts that are not conducive to be assembled such as steel, metals, alloys, plastic, rubber specialized material such as silicon to make chips, Lead-acid or Nickle-Cadmium to make batteries, and (2) parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled, where such parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled are widely known or referred to as components.
The components are created by using the ingredient parts, so both kinds of parts are complimentary. The components (i.e. parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled) are extremely valuable in designing and developing large or complex products. Although there is no valid reason why we can’t design and build software products by assembling components (i.e. parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled), such components are not yet invented (because no one ever tried to invent such components).
The negative knowledge accumulated by relying on 50 to 60 years old flawed beliefs (e.g. reusable parts are components) successfully preventing researchers from seeing obvious reality/facts, which otherwise obvious even to the laymen. No known kind of software components exist today is either designed or conducive to be assembled by any starch of imagination. But almost every software researcher or senior engineer feels he is an expert on components. So they have huge negative knowledge that is preventing each of them from seeing obvious reality/facts.
We in software community have been fooling ourselves and rest of the world that we have been already using components. If we believe that we are already using components, why any one try to invent components (i.e. very useful kind of parts that are designed and or conducive to be assembled). Designers need both kinds of parts, but today designers are forced to design develop products using only one kind of parts.
Saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” in 16th century offended common sense and then deeply entrenched commonsense or dominant paradigm. Today, the situation is not much different. I have been facing so must negative knowledge, because objective reality contradicts their altered perception of reality.
For example, many experts resorting to personal attacks, if I say the fact that I have been doing research on real software components for over 16 years and I secured 6 US-patents (they are 7827527, 7840937, 8527943, 8392877, 8578329 and 9058177) so far on real software components, that are designed and conducive to be assembled and necessary mechanisms such as software motherboard essential for plugging in the components.
Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the 16th century dominant paradigm (i.e. geocentric paradigm) were not yet subverted by exposing the error “the Earth is static”. All the great efforts of brilliant minds (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Max Planck or Maxwell to name a few) born during past 400 years could not have made any lasting contribution, except may be exposing the error.
If they don’t realize the error, their efforts would had resulted in adding more and more negative knowledge (e.g. to find possible excuses inexplicable things such as epicycles or retrograde motions). Today, software researchers are busy finding excuses for inexplicable paradox.
Best Regards,
Raju
Which one is better? Not knowing at all, or having flawed knowledge such as wrong belief (that is perceived to be self-evident fact for eternity)?
Think both are not "better" - more importantly is the person must have the willingness to learn / relearn upon exposure to new learning / correction. Human life can't progress without learning or must learn the right things all the times. We bound to make mistake / learning the wrong things / doing the long ways etc., but we need to have the right attitude to change. Changes surrounding us are constant, if we don't change or change slower, we will be lagging behind / being phased out.
Dear Dr. Fung and Dr. Raid,
Thank you. I am not disagreeing with other’s. Each of them and you are right in respective contexts. But in rare circumstances, certain disciplines create a block-hole of negative BoK (Body of Knowledge).
For example, 2300 years ago it was reasonable to belief “the Earth is static” by thought leaders such as Aristotle or Plato. Researchers start accumulating negative BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising of epicycles and retrograde motions by relying on the flawed belief. There were many valid justifications to conclude that “the Earth is static”, such as (i) if the Earth is moving, how can the Moon fallow (why the Moon is not left behind), or (ii) why stellar paradox can’t be observed.
After several hundred years of accumulating the BoK, the BoK clouded or masked/hidden the truth, making it far harder and harder to see the Truth by overcoming prejudice or preconceived notions considered common sense (or self-evident fact). The negative BoK painted an altered perception of reality that is in clear contradiction to the objective reality of heliocentric paradigm we know today.
Likewise, when Fortran and assembly languages were leading programming languages 50 to 60 years back, it was inconceivable to build complex software applications by plugging-in real-software-components (i.e. parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled).
At that time, thought leaders 50 to 60 years ago rightly concluded that complexity of software can be reduced by reducing custom code necessary for building each of the software products by using reusable parts or libraries. Today, the reusable parts or libraries eliminated up to 80% of the code we need to implement for each of the products.
However, in case of many large software products, each product still needs implementing millions of lines of custom code, even after eliminating up to 80% of the custom code by using reusable parts or libraries. My contention is that this custom code can be and must be implemented as parts that can be plugged-in (i.e. real software components).
The mistake 50 to 60 years was, they defined the parts that are useful for reducing the custom code were defined as components. For example, the famous NATO conference on software engineering in 1968 set a goal: Building software by assembling reusable components as hardware engineers build computers by assembling reusable components from 3rd party component venders.
The software research engineering community focused on reuse rather than ability to assemble, since it was inconceivable until 1990s to invest parts that can be assembled. By then the huge negative BoK accumulated since 1968 successfully mask or hide the reality/facts about the components and CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering).
The negative BoK rooted in wrong beliefs about components (that can’t be assembled) painted an altered perception of reality that is in clear contradiction to the objective reality we all know about the CBD/CBE of physical products that also use special kind of parts that are assembled (known as components).
This huge BoK is kind of black-hole for knowledge consuming more and more research efforts for adding more and more negative knowledge such as epicycles and retrograde motions in support of geocentric paradigm of software engineering. This negative BoK is feed to each of the students, who over time brain washed to believe reusable parts are components and CBD/CBE is using so called components.
I was no different. I worked between 1988 and 2001 with the belief that software is different and unique, so it is impossible to design and build new software products by assembling parts that are conducive to be plugged-in. I accidentally stumbled onto parts that can be plugged-in between 1999 and 2002. They were fascinating but took me more than a decade to make sense of them. Me and my team created hundreds of applications by using thousands of large pluggable components and component hierarchies (by assembled the pluggable components).
The whole BoK accumulated in support of geocentric paradigm was valid, if the belief at the root “the Earth was static” is True. Since the belief that is very foundation is flawed, it resulted in creating a huge black-hole of negative knowledge. I hope, this illustrates the rare case and context for this question.
Best Regards,
Raju
If, unbeknownst to us, each of us was a brain in a vat hooked up to a supercomputer that provided the brain with electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives, the brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences, such as those of being a person with an embodied brain, without these being related to objects or events in the real world. Hence all our beliefs about ourselves and our relation to objects in the world would be systematically false because merely simulated rather than real. I certainly wouldn't like that -- I would want my experiences of the world to be real rather than merely as if real. But I'd still know some things, e.g. how things seem to me, some mathematical propositions, my language, etc., and there would be no experiential difference between the real and the as if real. But surely the situation, undesirable as it might be, is better than knowing absolutely nothing at all, which sounds like a comatose state.
Dear Dr. Pfeifer,
Descartes wanted to achieve certainty by doubting every thing, while Dr. Popper argued persuasively that certainty is not possible. Kindly keep in mind this question is in the context of BoK (Body of Knowledge) for hard sciences and scientific method.
Weather we accept it or not, our knowledge is not perfect. But certain truths are very foundation to our scientific knowledge such as there exist a force of attraction between any two things having mass or the Sun is at the center of our planetary system. Although Kepler’s laws are not perfect, which are extremely close to objective reality. Likewise, Newton’s laws for universal gravity is not perfect, which are extremely close to objective reality.
The objective of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth, which also include trying to get closer and closer to absolute truth since often it is not possible to discover the absolute truth. In 2st century scientific method is transformed into not proving but disproving to expose the imperfections to get our knowledge closer and closer to reality.
In this context, negative knowledge and certainty prevents us form seeing even objective reality or facts. For example, today software researchers are certain about the 50 to 60 years old untested or unproven beliefs (e.g. reusable ingredient parts that can’t be assembled are components), where the certainty is preventing them to explore any other alternative paths to know the truth.
Certainty prevents others for challenging or even requesting for a proof. Today it is considered heresy to question or ask for proof for untested beliefs about the components.
Certainty about the unproven belief “the Earth is static at the center” prevented research community from exploring other possibilities for centuries. Now we are certain that the Earth is neither static nor at the center – The 2300 years old belief was conclusively disproved.
Best Regards,
Raju
Raju,
RE: Now we are certain that the Earth is neither static nor at the center – The 2300 years old belief was conclusively disproved.
I'm not so sure about the center, ha ha. It seems to me that whether to regard the Earth at the centre is an aesthetic and a pragmatic matter. We can let it remain stationary at the centre if we are willing to countenance weirdly shaped orbital trajectories etc. for other heavenly bodies, but it would greatly complicate our physics, maybe to a point beyond what the human mind can deal with. But like you, I do prefer the elegance of nearly circular orbits and simple formulas.
Also, it seems to me that we are generally constrained by our biology. Our scientific image of the world is a human one. A species with a different evolutionary history might have access to aspects of the world that are opaque to us, and in that regard our scientific image of the world might be like that of the poor brain in a vat, in that it systematically misrepresents (or underrepresents) some aspect of the world.
Cheers,
Karl
Dear Dr. Pfeifer,
I think, I understand you humorous perspective :-). I agree, it would be nightmare to explain epicycles. In my perspective, the objective reality was painted by Kepler’s 3 laws, reasoned by Newton’s laws, universal gravity and calculus. These proofs and reasoning were confirmed by many things such as discovery of Neptune due to perturbations in the orbit of Uranus. I don’t thing, there exists any counter evidence to disprove Heliocentric model.
If the Earth is static, we need to start from “I think Therefore I am”. We have to question every thing. We must be in some kind of illusion such in Matrix movie created by a super deceiver. I hope every thing I have been experiencing such as the Internet, Computers or Air travel is not illusions. If it is not illusion, I worked in the Silicon Valley nearly decade creating software for semiconductor fabs, which includes inspecting using electron microscope and analyzing sub-micron defects.
Lets assume we exist and we are not in an illusion by super deceiver. 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".
As you can see, we are all prone to make mistakes. The 16th century researchers tried to suppress any evidence that could undermine then dominant geocentric paradigm. Even in 21st century, software researchers have been suppressing any evidence or fact that could undermine existing reuse oriented dominant component based paradigm (while so called components are not assembled by any stretch of imagination).
Best Regards,
Raju
Raju,
Ptolemaic epicycles, which attempted to preserve some aesthetic elements and serve some ideological purposes, are far from the only option. A "faithful to the data" geocentric option would probably make the heavenly bodies look more like a swarm of bees. :)
Heliocentricism is no more ‘correct’ than geocentricism. Astronomers use some sort of galactic coordinate system in which the sun is not stationary but follows a path of its own. According to the theory of relativity, there is no “One True Frame of Reference” for the universe. We choose our frames of reference for pragmatic reasons, and for some purposes some frames of reference are better than others. NASA in fact employs some geocentric models when it is more practical and convenient to do so.
I myself would be partial to an L5-centric model once we establish orbiting colonies at the LaGrange points. :D
Cheers,
Karl
Dear Dr. Pfeifer,
The advancements in scientific discoveries and technological inventions require purity of knowledge by minimizing the imperfections in all perspectives for example in the context of a solution of a problem. Flawed knowledge and understanding leads to imperfect conclusions infective inventions. All these inventions we take for granted could not be working, if our knowledge is imperfect. Wisdom is ability to extract value from valid knowledge.
How could we build semiconductor chips (having billions of transistors), if our knowledge about electrons and how they behave in semiconductor material is flawed and filled with inexplicable imperfections? How could we build fiber optic networks, if our knowledge about light and how they behave in optical fibers is flawed and filled with inexplicable imperfections? How could we build cures for infections, if our knowledge about bacteria is flawed and filled with inexplicable imperfections?
I am sure, many of us feel that our home is at the center :-) figuratively speaking: Each of us plan our day to day activities by considering that our hose is at the center. I am sure, NASA is not promoting that geocentric model is the one and only truth by insisting that heliocentric model is a lie. They acknowledge the heliocentric model in the context of our planetary system. Of course, the Sun is circling the center of our galaxy. Likewise, relative to the earth and artificial satellites geocentric model might be sufficient.
The researchers in 16th century violently defended geocentric model saying it is the only Truth and any thing that contradict such truth is heresy. Similar situation exists in software engineering today that has been preventing software researchers inventing real components (i.e. very useful kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled).
Today no known kind of so called software components is designed and/or conducive to be assembled. Such inventions require comprehensive knowledge that is accurate and gain wisdom to extract value. The infamous spaghetti code and resultant software crisis must have already cost trillions of dollars to the world economy. I am sure, invention and wide adoption of real components (i.e. parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assemble) would increase overall productivity by 5 folds and quality by 10 folds to the 1.2 trilling dollar a year software industry.
Best Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Software