Good discussion. Following.

Dear Raju,

As I see it, a scientist is someone who makes conjectures, raises hypotheses, advances theories and the like, and submit them to the Popperian test of falsification. The more one is able to raise, say, "irritating" questions or doubts, that is, questions that go against the maisntream and whose answer leads us a better knowledge of the unknown and advances knowldedge, the more one is entitled to be a scientist.

Of course, formal sciences such as logic and mathematics do not run experiments as physics and biology do and hence they are not subject to the Popperian test of falsifiability.They are rather subject, say, to the text of coherence and intellegibitity.

Best regards,

Orlando.

Dear Raju,

This is interesting as several "researchers" claimed on RG that those with master degrees in engineering chemistry, mechanics, etc. can not be included in the "researcher's" branch since they need to have publications that are validated.

What is the purpose of your question as we know that "data scientists" are not specialists in knowledge, but rather they know how to make changes to algorithms to help computers get trained.

So, simply what they do is "training the computers" by providing data.

Yes, the word "science" in "DATA SCIENCE" is doubtful, but then this is not your main question, isn't it?

"Data science is an interdisciplinary field that uses scientific methods, processes, algorithms and systems to extract knowledge and insights from data in various forms, both structured and unstructured, similar to data mining.

Data science is a "concept to unify statistics, data analysis, machine learning and their related methods" in order to "understand and analyze actual phenomena" with data. It employs techniques and theories drawn from many fields within the context of mathematics, statistics, information science, and computer science. "

Dear Dr. Orlando,

I agree with you. That is what we expect from scientists. But unfortunately, I interacted with thousands of software researchers during past decade, where each them considers himself a computer science scientist, but refuse to look at the evidence, facts and reasoning objectively. They go to any extent to defend their flawed beliefs or myths about components and CBD/CBE.

Researchers of computer science made many assumptions about components and CBD/CBE 50 to 60 years ago, during pre-science (or pre-paradigmatic) period of computer science (i.e. when software engineering was in its infancy).

As you can observe responses to many of my questions, many software experts resorted to personal attacks, when I try to question the validity of untested and unproven assumptions or myths.

For example, basic sciences went through pre-science (or pre-paradigmatic) period approximately until 2nd century and researchers made assumptions such as “The Earth is static (at the center)”. Few people were humiliated and punished for challenging the assumption in until 17th century. You don’t expect such behavior in the 21st century.

“Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge” … Ayn Rand

I don’t go that extent, but, I feel reason is very important factor for grasping reality and acquiring knowledge. Other things such as observation, experiments and empirical falsification also important tools.

I am the only person in the software world (if not whole world) saying this: No part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled, in the context of CBD/CBE of countless physical products such as Airplanes, computers, cars, machinery or equipment for factory or medical etc.

All of them have been brainwashed to believe that, reusable parts are components. So software engineering ended up as civil engineer for constructing buildings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture

It is not hard to build complex software by assembling components. But no one is even willing to explore the possibility by insisting that it is heresy: https://technology.siliconindiamagazine.com/viewpoint/cxoinsights/spaghetti-code-cracked-catapulting-software-industry-to-achieve-quantum-growth-nwid-15198.html

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Miss. Grossu,

Many fields are called science such as political science, or economic science, which are referred to as science to indicate the intention of employing scientific method for acquiring and accumulating knowledge (although the field deal with subjective matters).

In the following articles, I tried to explain my understanding of science: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280803360_What_is_this_thing_called_Science_What_is_real_science_any_way

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304248122_What_is_a_Real_Science_What_is_not_a_Real_or_Pseudo_Science_How_Computer_Science_can_be_transformed_from_Pseudo_Science_to_real_Science_today

P.S: Hard science deal with objective matters such as nature and characteristics of physical things such as atoms, light or elementary particles. Although we may never discover the absolute Truth about structure or elementary particles, but we know the there exists a absolute Truth. Theories such as String Theory are proposed to get closer and closer to the Truth.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

The very nature of disruptive discoveries is challenging deeply entrenched conventional wisdom, for example by exposing flawed beliefs or prejudice at the very foundation of the deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Nothing can be disrupted without challenging flawed conventional wisdom.

It is impossible to subvert a flawed dominant paradigm without making disruptive discoveries for exposing flawed but deep-seated beliefs that are at the very foundation of the paradigm. No one can be a real scientist or researcher, if he/she can’t handle such inconvenient Truths.

Unanimity of biases (or baseless prejudice) can’t make it a fact. Disruptive discoveries expose such unsubstantiated prejudice or myths.

No real scientist or researcher ever asks any one to believe him (i.e. his discoveries). But he requests research community to give him an opportunity or chance to show proof backed by evidence and reasoning for his disruptive discoveries or inventions.

How could any such disruptive discovery sees the day of light, if no qualified researcher or scientist willing to validate the proof backed by evidence and reasoning? I requested thousands of scientists, researchers or experts to give me an opportunity for showing proof backed by evidence and reasoning for my disruptive discoveries and our inventions that are rooted in the discoveries.

Every software scientist or researcher blindly insists that my disruptive discoveries are wrong and our inventions that are rooted in our disruptive discoveries don’t work. It is blatant violation of scientific method. No real scientist or researcher is entitled to hold on to such baseless myths, prejudices or beliefs, if he/she can’t provide valid evidence and/or reasoning for such beliefs.

Since it is a blatant violation of basic scientific method or principles, no scientist can be a real scientist, if he defends and/or holds on to baseless myths or beliefs. Any real scientist or researcher has only two options: Provide valid evidence and/or reasoning to substantiate his/her beliefs, or try to falsify my proof backed by evidence and reasoning for exposing flawed beliefs.

Only a fake scientist or an incompetent researcher feels that is entitled to hold on to baseless myths, and refuses to provide evidence or valid reasoning (e.g. by using silly or evasive excuses). Only a fake scientist or an incompetent researcher resorts to vicious personal attacks or snubbing, when requested to provide valid evidence or reasoning to back his myths, prejudice or beliefs.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Hi Raju,

Then consciousness can not be proven at this time, but does it mean that it does not exist? Same, can scientists of any kind prove "intuition"?

Are the tools created first or "methodologies" "ideas" etc.?

Dear Miss. Grossu,

What is consciousness? Today it is highly subjective. One day, mankind could discover objective Truths about consciousness. But my personal feeling is that “consciousness” is going to be subjective like psychology. I am open to correction. Also, it is not my filed of expertise.

The purpose of scientific method is to look for, find and eliminate imperfections in our understanding reality (or body of knowledge that paints our perception of reality).

There is nothing in scientific method to suppress “institution” or “ideas”. One uses them to propose a theory or hypothesis. How do you know you are going in the right direction? The “scientific method” only provides proven tools and principles to find errors.

The whole software community believes that it is impossible to build software products by assembling or plugging in components. I have been doing that for past 16 years.

In fact, I too believed that it is impossible to build software products by assembling or plugging in components, until I accidentally stumbled on to components that can be assembled 16 years ago.

My intention is to falsify the untested and unproven flawed belief. Scientific method requires eliminating such flaws by investigating such new evidence and reasoning. Any real scientist has ethical obligation to investigate counter evidence for exposing imperfections.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju Chiluvuri

With regard to general AI, what must be sought is a VERY active processing entity -- and one that basically has a biological nature (the makers of this entity must "channel" biology" *). I have done my best to help this out. See: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology and the (my) basically related Project on Ethogram Theory ( https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory ) .

If one is seeking the true "scientific method" for formulating a NEW science view (which clearly needs some discoveries that will be "just" verified OBSERVATIONS), THEN the "scientific method" is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN COMMONLY CONCEIVED.

* FOOTNOTE: And, by this, I mean the biology OF behavior: (PER SE): the systematic patterns of behavior and patterns of patterns. I may be one of the few non-concrete-minded (yet MORE concrete based) people that still "believes" in Psychology as originally defined: the science of BEHAVIOR (and, of course, the always-relevant corresponding aspects of the ENVIRONMENT). This sort of perspective is most certainly the Psychology perspective needed by General AI.

P.S. If "nobody 'cares'", it is because nobody (i.e. professors) LETS 'them' care. For example: The corrupt stifled system has let Psychology ROT for over a century (in what historically [eventually] will be seen as done in the same basic way for all of that century) -- yet the power and control of the status quo remains. Fortunately, General Artificial Intelligence basically has no reasonable choice but a perspective and approach such as mine (and, at present, that set includes: JUST MINE).

Good discussion. Following.

Dear Mr. Jesness,

Many researchers have been trying to explore general AI, by employing his/her own hypothesis, intuition or guesses. Scientific method imposes no limits on individual freedom to choose a path for getting closer to the Truth. Each hypothesis, intuition or guesses allows us to explore a path in search of Truth.

For example, the assumption that the Earth is at the center let scientific research into a wrong path. If the hypothesis “the Sun is at the center” were wrong it must had diverted mankind’s research into another paradox. Today CBD/CBE ended up in a paradox, because assumptions for so called components are flawed.

But, if anyone want to claim or show to the world that his/her theory is closer to the Truth, scientific method demands providing falsifiable evidence, facts and reasoning. Falsifiable doesn’t imply that the theory is flawed, but it can be shown flawed, if there is a flaw in the theory, for example, by finding counter evidence.

Also, scientific method states that it is wrong to hold on to a belief, if it can be falsified using evidence or facts. Only fake scientists try to hold on to beliefs that can be proved false. He is not a scientist, if he refuses to look at evidence or facts that can falsify beliefs (in his field of expertise or discipline).

For example, if I am software researcher and rely on set of beliefs about components, I cannot ignore any evidence that can expose flawed beliefs.

Unfortunately, I requested thousands of software researchers doing research by relying on flawed beliefs about components. They refused to look at the evidence.

The scientific research often is choosing a path (e.g. using guesses or assumptions) and exploring the path by hoping that it leads to a new discovery. You would know that you are in the right path, when you made a discovery.

For example, Kepler knew that Heliocentric model is right path when he discovered first two laws of planetary motion. Using the laws, he could precisely predict locations of planets years in advance (hundreds of times better than possible before). This ability to predict the location proves that he is much closer to Truth.

Newton knew that his discovery of universal gravity (i.e. inverse square) is right by using Kepler’s third law. Until that point (of proof backed by evidence and facts), it is just a hypothesis.

Scientific method keeps research effort in right path by help us detect and avoid wrong paths sooner that later https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_many_scientists_have_hard_time_understanding_this_simple_rule_The_only_path_for_scientific_progress_is_through_series_of_objective_truths_facts

P.S: Each real discovery mostly takes us closer to Truth for example, by providing answers to many questions that were unanswered before. For example, Kepler’s laws only explains planetary paths, but we don’t know why they are moving in the paths until Newton’s discovery of universal gravity. Newton discovered the existence of gravity, but don’t know why there is gravity. Einstein general relativity find the reason for the gravity.

Isn’t this objective measure or validation: ability to predict location of planes 100 times more accurately then possible before? Also, perturbances in orbit of Neptune lead to prediction of another planet and resulted in the discovery of Pluto (whose gravitational pull caused the perturbances).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Nirmala,

I respectfully disagree. Most scientists fool themselves that they are rational and open minded, but clouded by preconceived ideas or climate of opinions. Let me ask you a question: What is a component, in the context of designing and development of countless products such as cars, airplanes, computers and machinery etc.? Correct answer to this question results in a great revolution in software engineering.

Please read this synopsis of this famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science in 20th century: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html. The first paragraph of this synopsis 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".

For example, each and every book on software and research paper in the world teach that “parts that are designed and/or conducive to be reusable are components” and “CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of a product is using such parts (that can be reusable) for building the product”. Now every researcher in the world strenuously and devotedly working hard to force the nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by their flawed education and later years (or even decades) of their work and experience confined to the conceptual boxes.

Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Popper are considered two of the greatest 20th century philosophers of science. Dr. Popper works describe ideal scientific process in the perfect world, while Dr. Kuhn describes imperfect states of scientific knowledge. No one in the world can prove that this statement is wrong: Software researchers have been committing all three mistakes described by Dr. Kuhn’s famous book.

Researchers violently oppose any thing that oppose their sacred received beliefs such as a discovery of a fact that is outside of the conceptual boxes, for example, by resorting to hostile personal attacks to suppress novelties that are often obvious facts such as parts that are not conducive to be assembled can’t be components. That is, parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled are known (i.e. referred to or named) as components. Hence, no part can be called as a component, if it is not designed or conducive to be assembled (even if the part is reusable). Today, no known kind of software components are designed and/or intended to be assembled by any stretch of imagination.

The reality of CBD/CBE of countless products we use every day such as cars, bikes, TVs, computers, cell-phones, airplanes or machines (e.g. machinery for factories) can be summarized as: Implementing large percent of features and functionality within a set of very special kind of parts, where each special kind of part (known as a component) is designed and/or conducive to be assembled.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju,

Your examples seem to be mainly of a technical, indeed mechanical, nature biased towards IT. I may be wrong in this. What other forms of science are you thinking of?

Dear Mr. Wilkin,

I known this specific problem because my field of expertise is software and I have been trying to expose this problem for over a decade. This kind of errors could exist in other modern scientific disciplines that are created first dominant paradigm right after pre-paradigmatic phase: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPsc55zsXA

Even the basic sciences went through this phase. The basic sciences were pre-paradigmatic phase approximately until 2nd century. Researchers made assumptions such as “the Earth is static at the center” during pre-paradigmatic phase. Hence, the body of knowledge (BoK) for this paradigm (known as geocentric paradox) was acquired and accumulated by relying on this wrong belief until 16th century.

No one asked proof for belief “the Earth is at the center”, but no other discovery of Truth in the of the world faced more resistance and hostilities than this fact: The Sun is at the center and the Earth is moving around the Sun. The whole world tried to suppress this truth for 100 years: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

Likewise, pre-paradigmatic phase for software is approximately until 1972. Researchers made wrong assumptions about components for CBD/CBE of products. Hence, the body of knowledge (BoK) for existing paradigm has been acquired and accumulated by relying on this wrong belief. The whole software world trying to suppress facts about the components for CBD/CBE.

Any new scientific discipline could inject such flawed assumptions during pre-paradigmatic phase. This leads to accumulating and acquiring BoK by relying on the flawed assumptions for expanding the first paradigm. Such flawed assumptions are extremely hard to detect and nearly impossible to expose by overcoming the hostile resistance. My ResearchGate posts illustrate my first hand experience and struggles.

There is no other book more influential or cited academic book than the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shifts and progress of scientific desciplines. It has other examples.

Even the basic science was not a real science until 17th century. Exposing the flawed assumptions (the Earth is static at the center) transformed the basic science into a real science and the researchers into real scientists. Exposing flawed assumptions at the foundation of software would transform computer science into real science.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju Chiluvuri

There should be a LOT of good verifiable OBSERVATION of phenomenon to contextualize what part of this any experiment is about and helps to show [at least aspects of] observations are correct as empirically conceived.

Decent and scientific models, [ideally] to be tested in-good-part experimentally, ONLY FOLLOW verified and agreed-upon OBSERVATIONS (with good inter-rater/inter-observer reliabilities) -- however those are obtained. OTHERWISE you are a priori asserting the nature of phenomenon. PERIOD. If people realize THIS, they would not so much discount all the other science work except experiments and they would NOT think only experiments are really important. One would not do anything remotely like that.

THUS: This idea that one should (or CAN) conjure up a model (perhaps based on informal observation(s)) and ONLY THEN look to verify it is absolutely un-empirical and unscientific.

OBSERVATIONS are are as falsifiable as experiments -- it can be shown if they have OR lack high inter-observer reliablities (P.S.: p

Scientists are humans, not machines. We're biased. We still have subjective analyses of theories that we accept or reject, even if science itself is fairly objective. A scientist isn't someone who lives their entire life by science, but rather a scientist is anyone who adds quality work to the body of scientific theory and evidence, for public scrutiny.

Dear Mr. Goldman,

I agree. That is the reason, many great philosophers of science created the scientific method in 17th century, particularly by the researcher who endured pain and suffering first hand for exposing flawed belief at the root of then dominant geocentric paradigm/paradox. Furthermore, many more great philosophers of science have been perfecting the scientific method for past 300 years.

Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the pre-paradigmatic beliefs (e.g. 2300 years old lie the Earth is static at the center”) at the root of the 16th century geocentric paradigm were not yet exposed.

All the great scientists born during past 400 years (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Bose, Max Planck, Bohr, Dirac or Maxwell) could not have made any tangible contribution, except may be exposing the error (i.e. the 2300-year-old lie) at the root of geocentric paradigm. Each of them must had wasted their hard work and passion in pursuit of fool’s errand (e.g. to make sense of inexplicable or incomprehensible epicycles or retrograde motion of geocentric model).

Existing software engineering paradigm has been evolving by relying on flawed beliefs made during pre-paradigmatic phase. Can we afford to allow thousands of brilliant researchers waste their valuable efforts on the geocentric paradox of software engineering?

Best Regards,

Raju

Recently someone here or in a similar thread said: If you do not do experiments, what you are doing is NOT science (

Dear Raju,

My expertise has been with medicine, a great deal of which I consider not to be scientific-against popular belief. But the nature of science and scientific research needs greater consideration. My simple understanding is that science can only be a science if it establishes an object separate from subject, that is the researcher or expounder (s) of the science.

Dear Mr. Wilkin,

Sorry for late reply. I was on vacation last week. What is scientific? Any thing related to nature and characteristics of physical things or phenomena is scientific?

For example, nature and characteristics of bacteria or viruses is scientific. Even though, we might not know them, but we have no doubt that there exists an objective Truth. The purpose of scientific research is pursuit of such objective Truths, which often requires getting closer and closer to the objective Truth (until someone can discover the Truth).

For example, we may never discover the objective Truths about structure of elementary particles (e.g. electrons or protons), but researchers working on theories such string theory to get closer and closer to the Objective Truth.

In my humble opinion, medicine is certainly a science. Answers to many questions are objective Truths, for example questions such as how bacteria or viruses function in various kinds people or animals.

There are millions or permutations and combinations, so we can never answer all the questions. Likewise, answer to, how cancer cells function, is an objective Truth.

There could be many kinds of cancer cells and how each kind react in a given situation such as anti-bodies, or immune system etc. Today we may not even know various factors that can influence each kind cancer. But there is no doubt that there exists answers that are objective Truth, even we may never find answers to such questions.

Since, doctors don’t know answers to many questions they have to make best possible guess based on few answers we know. Such decision making is subjective. But medical research is to expand the BoK (Body of Knowledge) to answer more and more questions, in order to make such decision making is subjective to a lesser degree.

In summary, the research for medicine is scientific, which is to expand BoK (Body of Knowledge) by finding more and more answers. But making the decisions is subjective to certain degree, since the doctors have to make decisions based on parties answers in the BoK.

Best Regards,

Raju

You know, I will say that I think every scientist should be able to (though not be required to) pass some kind of simple test that shows a proper understanding of the fundamentals of the philosophy and history of science, including the foundations of probability theory and formal logic.

Dear Mr. Goldman,

I strongly agree. In fact, I have advocated the same in many of my messages. Many researchers consider themselves scientists repeating well-documented mistakes. Many of them are blatantly violating basic principles of scientific method, which is created 350 years ago to prevent simple mistakes and has been perfected for past 350 years by brilliant philosophers of science.

Best Regards,

Raju

Raju Chiluvuri, the question of what science is, how it works, and what it can and cannot do, is still in many ways an open topic. Modern science is a bastardization of both inductive (Baconian) and deductive (Popperian) methods, and I think it's the lack of formal education in the philosophy and history of science that is partly to blame.

Hopefully we can do something about that. I don't know. I have a few discussions on the topic, including this one: Preprint Reforming Science

I think every scientist should have a basic understanding of what Bacon and Popper developed, as well as a basic understanding of probability (not just statistics) and formal logic (including proof by contradiction).

Dear Mr. Goldman,

There may be lot of room for improvement for scientific method. Nothing in the world is perfect and there is room for improvements. So, I don’t disagree with possible improvement.

But this is not justification for blatantly violating proven principles of scientific method. For example, this blatantly violates the scientific method: Acquiring new knowledge by relying unproven and untested beliefs (by insisting that the beliefs are sacred inalienable Truths for eternity).

My earlier questions more than 2 years old: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Isnt_it_scandal_if_not_fraud_if_scientists_continue_to_rely_on_flawed_myths_which_blatantly_violate_objective_reality_by_ignoring_clear_warnings

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

P.S: As in my earlier reply for medicine, doctors use available knowledge to treat many disease successfully. This doubled average life expectancy during past 100 years. Today we can cure many diseases, which don't have cures 100 years ago. We need to acquire lot more knowledge to treat many other diseases. This is True even in the case of scientific method and philosophy of science.

Best Regards,

Raju

> But this is not justification for blatantly violating proven principles of scientific method.

There are two different methods, Raju Chiluvuri. One of these methods is deductive, which is satisfied by our current foundation of probability and forma logic. The other is induction, and it is not satisfied by that foundation. And it is the understanding of The Problem of Induction that I think every scientist needs to have.

Dear Miss. Nirmala,

You said: A scientist is a person who studies or has expertise in science. A scientist tries to understand how our world, or other things, work. Scientists make observations, ask questions and do extensive research work in finding the answers to many questions others may not know about.

In the process scientists make so many mistakes, which can be easily avoided if we learn from past mistakes. Unfortunately, scientific communities repeat similar mistakes again and again. I can provide many examples.

For example, let me use work of one of the greatest philosopher of science and historian of scientific progress, to give you an example.

Please read this synopsis of this famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science in 20th century: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html. The first paragraph of this synopsis 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".

For example, each and every book on software and research paper in the world teach that “parts that are designed and/or conducive to be reusable are components” and “CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of a product is using such parts (that can be reusable) for building the product”. Now every researcher in the world strenuously and devotedly working hard to force the nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by their flawed education and later years (or even decades) of their work and experience confined to the conceptual boxes.

Dr. Kuhn and Dr. Popper are considered two of the greatest 20th century philosophers of science. Dr. Popper works describe ideal scientific process in the perfect world, while Dr. Kuhn describes imperfect states of scientific knowledge. No one in the world can prove that this statement is wrong: Software researchers have been committing all three mistakes described by Dr. Kuhn’s famous book.

Researchers violently oppose any thing that oppose their sacred received beliefs such as a discovery of a fact that is outside of the conceptual boxes, for example, by resorting to hostile personal attacks to suppress novelties that are often obvious facts such as parts that are not conducive to be assembled can’t be components. That is, parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled are known (i.e. referred to or named) as components. Hence, no part can be called as a component, if it is not designed or conducive to be assembled (even if the part is reusable). Today, no known kind of software components are designed and/or intended to be assembled by any stretch of imagination.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Goldman,

I am sure no method supports killing or prosecuting Bruno or Galileo for challenging untested and unproven belief “the Earth is static at the centre”.

But today research community computer science resorting to humiliating personal attacks and ostracized me for challenging 60 year-old untested and unproven beliefs at the foundation of existing software engineering paradigm. Please see attached PDF.

I was banned by IIIT, Hyderabad (that claims to be Research University focused on software), for simply stating fact that I have 6 US patents on real software components. I am sure, many such institutions in India and USA would prosecute me, if they have support of religious institutions in 21st century: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_so_many_experts_react_so_viciously_and_resort_to_insults_for_requesting_an_opportunity_to_demonstrate_counter_evidence_for_flawed_beliefs

I am a naturalized US citizen and had similar experience with top research institutions such as NSF.gov, SEI/CMU and NITRD.gov to name a few. They have no courage to ban me and engage in a debate, but they used every possible evasive tactics or silly excuse to evade their moral obligations. None of them know even basic principles of scientific method.

I have no idea how they got their PhDs. I asked them to sue me, if I am wrong. If I can afford lawyers I would have sued them longtime ago for their gross negligence.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Raju Chuluvuri

I see a very simple answer to your question.

Softwares , components ,CBE/CBD and alike are parts or spin-offs of Electronics.

Electronics is a not a Science ,it is a conglomerate of theoretical knowleadge from different branches of Physics , Chemistry ,Mathematics ,Logics with very ample empirical / technological /shopfloor knowleadge.

A person expert in this field can be a very valuable engineer ,technician or teacher.

But cannot be a scientist in the field of a non-existent Science.

On the other hand , please let me to inform you that Bruno and Galilei were prosecuted for teological assumptions not astronomical.

Mircea Pteancu

Dear Mr. Pteancu,

The components are physical things, like other kinds of physical things such as atoms, molecules, alloys, bacteria, animals or trees. They have physical characteristics or properties and a nature.

If one wish to invent components for achieving CBD/CBE (Component Based Design and/or Engineering) for software products, it is essential to have valid and comprehensive knowledge about nature and characteristics or properties of components.

Likewise, to achieve real-intelligence by creating artificial neural networks, it is essential to acquire valid and comprehensive knowledge about nature, characteristics and functioning of neurons.

The best and proven way for achieving such valid and comprehensive knowledge about physical things is by employing scientific method. Please se attached PDF.

Many kinds of components for software products were defined without any basis in reality or fact. The researchers have been wondering since 1970s, why software engineering ended up in crisis. Only engineering that is infested with infamous spaghetti code.

The nature and characteristics of neurons were defined without any basis in reality or fact. They soon start wondering why Artificial Intelligence ended-up in a dead end.

Software engineering is rooted in flawed beliefs such as reusable parts are components. Today, software engineering ended-up as civil engineering that doesn’t have components (i.e. parts that can be assembled and disassembled). Over 80% of software engineering is changing existing software and its parts.

Employing software engineering paradigm equivalent to Electronic engineering paradigm (that created products by plugging-in components) would increase productivity by 5 to 10 folds.

Software researchers could never achieve things such as CBD/CBE or real-neural networks (to name a few) without discovering and acquiring valid and comprehensive relevant knowledge by employing scientific method.

Software engineering and particularly computer science failed to address other such problems, because software researchers refuse to acquire valid and comprehensive relevant knowledge by employing scientific method.

Please see my next question (should I bribe scientists to fulfill their moral obligations ): https://www.researchgate.net/post/Anyone_ever_heard_about_any_researcher_had_to_pay_money_or_bribe_scientists_to_get_his_new_discovery_or_theory_validated_or_endorsed

P,S: Also see: Article Proposing a new scientific discipline in computer science: C...

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

I have very recently tried to provide a general (overall: for all sciences) definition of science:

The definition of science :

ALL science refers to the ability to replicate KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE circumstances and KEY OVERT OBSERVABLE phenomenon * THAT, obvious to ALL (in a fully agreed-upon way), are necessary for best understanding later replicable overt observable circumstances AND corresponding later proximately-related key overt, observable phenomenon * patterns ( so both "sides of the equation" are taken care of, so to speak ) -- BUT, ALSO this may well imply some more-than-believable mechanism(s) for some linkage(s) which would be of some reasonable nature, but that may not be fully or clearly discovered YET (

Dear Readers

Just now, I did some further editing of my last Answer (above), to make a part of a multi-sentence definition understood as I intended (and as I actually meant) -- not implicitly relying on readers to take a "correct perspective" to read-as-meant what I was saying. Sorry for not having the Answer immediately in the best shape (I am getting too old for this, apparently -- as I, myself, have suspected and indicated/admitted). My apologies.

I should let all know I made an edit to my second-to-the-last post, above.

The RECENT EDIT: I originally used the phrase "behavior patterns", meaning THE 'behavioral' patterning of ANYTHING, I.E. MEANING: "PHENOMENON". This phrase has been replaced with the word "phenomenon" to make it clear that such a general thing is what I meant.

Raju Chiluvuri This is an interesting post. I just have a minor comment.

You write "The scientific method has been perfected during past 300 years by countless contributions of great philosophers of science including Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Arthur Schopenhauer, Russell or Feyerabend to name a few".

I doubt that Feyerabend would have argued that he helped to "perfect" scientific method. His book "Against Method" is more like a plea for tolerance and openness, acknowledging potential limitations of epistemology. Similarly, Russell (Russell's paradox) and later Gödel demonstrated limits of understanding.

Dear Dr. Treiblmaier,

Moderns scientific method is not about rules that must fallowed to gain new scientific knowledge, but tests and validations or reasoning that must be performed to eliminate imperfections or anomalies in the existing knowledge.

There are no rules for acquiring new knowledge. I always use one rule: Don’t rely on flawed belief. But I always use assumptions to explore new roads. But I abandon the new roads, as soon as I found evidence that my assumption is flawed.

Everyone uses untested and/or unproven hypothesis to explore a new path. If it leads to verifiable and/or testable discovery, the discovery end up proving the hypothesis (by providing sufficient verifiable or testable support, which can't be falsified using available data - But new data discovered in the future might falsify it).

Modern scientific method is not providing a proof for a new discovery or theory, but inability to falsify a new discovery or theory by using existing knowledge, possible tests and reasoning. It is a violation of scientific method, to hold on to beliefs that can easily be proven to be flawed.

Today, researchers and scientists of software and computer science are fiercely defending 50 to 60 year old pre-paradigmatic phase flawed beliefs such as reusable parts are components for CBD/CBE (Component Based Design and/or Engineering) of products. It is obviously a violation of scientific method. They can’t call themselves scientists. Please see attached PDF.

Best Regards,

Raju