A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. ... Max Planck.
Science advances one funeral at a time... Max Planck.
“My Dear: The uttering of the Sun being the center was blasphemous. The notion that all men and women should be treated equally was blasphemous. The Origin of Species was blasphemous… All great truths begin as blasphemies, Falsely yours” … George Bernard Shaw
In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: "My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
Galileo Galilee was not popular in his time for forcefully advocating the Truth and was intensely disliked by most of his peers. Even in 20th century (just 40 years ago) Dr. Fritz Zwicky is not popular and was intensely dislike by most of his peers for forcefully advocating Truth.
This web page http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_zwicky.html says, if ever a competition were held for the most unrecognized genius of 20th century astronomy, the winner surely would be Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974).
From the day Shechtman published his findings on quasicrystals in 1984 to the day Linus Pauling died (1994), Shechtman experienced hostility from him toward the non-periodic interpretation. "For a long time it was me against the world," Shechtman said. "I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography. The leader of the opposition to my findings was the two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, the idol of the American Chemical Society and one of the most famous scientists in the world. Linus Pauling is noted saying about the works of Dan Shechtman "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.", where the works of Dan Shechtman later won Nobel Prize.
These above are just few examples. If the truth contradicts then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom, it is perplexing why most of the brilliant minds had no intellectual curiosity to investigate truth. Unfortunately, is it a curse to accidentally discover a flaw in the seed axioms of a mature paradigm? I believe, even the researcher who discovered the flaw by accident, might not behave any differently than rest of his peers, if he were not made such discovery.
Each mature paradigm at its root has few basic axioms, so I refer to them as root or seed axioms. The researchers assume that the seed axioms (or first principles) are truths and the paradigm evolves by relying on the axioms, and over time the paradigm becomes a mature paradigm. That is, it results in a reality (deeply entrenched conventional wisdom) or world view comprising web of countless interdependent concepts, observations and empirical results. This reality is nothing but a paradox if the seed axioms (or first principles) are not error free (i.e. seed axiom has fundamental flaws). If there are errors in the seed axioms (or first principles), it results in a paradox (i.e. altered reality) comprising epicycles, retrograde motions and contradictions, which are rationalized by using invalid circular logic (e.g. defending the seed axioms by relying on the concepts, observations and empirical results biased by paradoxical paradigm evolved from flawed seed axioms). For example, any one can observe epicycles and retrograde motion by standing on the earth, but now we know what was wrong.
Even the brilliant minds of computer science of software engineering defined CBD (“Component Based Design”) is using software parts either having a given set of useful properties (e.g. reuse or standardized) or conform to a give so called component models. This effectively resulted in CBSE/CBSD (CBD for software) is using software parts equivalent to ingredient parts such as cement, steel, bare silicon wafers, plastic or metal alloys that are highly standardized and reusable across multiple product models and product families (e.g. cars, TVs, ACs and cell-phones).
Most researchers have hard time accepting simple obvious facts and refuse to investigate the Truth that real CBD requires using real software components. Most researchers refuse to accept simple facts about real CBD such as (i) cost of disassembling (or re-assembling) an Ideal CBD product must be under 10% of the cost and complexity of all the components (ii) over 90% of the complexity (i.e. features and functionality) is implemented in the components, where each component can be unplugged to re-design/refine individually for example for adding more-features or functionality, and can be tested individually outside of the product before plugging in to the product.
On the other hand, in case of real CBD (of physical products), it is not necessary for even a single component to either have any of the useful properties erroneously attributed to software components or conform to any of the known so called software component models.
Why there exists two realities one for CBD of large physical products and another for CBD of large software products? Why CBD of a new one-of-a-kind large software product must be different from a new one-of-a-kind large physical product (e.g. an experimental jet-fighter or prototype of a spacecraft), where each large component is custom designed to suite unique needs of the application. Usually each large component is designed to roughly (or approximately) fit the needs the target prototype product and then constantly refined little-by-little to make it as best as it can be to perfectly fit and satisfy unique needs of the target product.
In case of an ideal CBD, over 95% of the features and functionality is implemented in one of multiple components, where each component can be refined and tested individually (to make it as bets as it can be) outside of the target product. Either complexity or uniqueness of a physical product can’t prevent designers from encapsulating 90% of the functionality and features of the product in a set of components (where prototype of each component is likely implemented to fit approximately and later refined little-by-little until it fits perfectly). Why can’t we in software implement 95% (or even 50%) of the custom features and functionality in such real components, where custom code implemented for each component can be refined and tested individually (to make it as bets as it can be) outside of the target product?
A true Kuhnian paradigm shift is competition between 2 different realities (i.e. an existing deeply entrenched paradigm and a new paradigm), where existing paradigm is supported by a large matrix of interdependent concepts, observations and experimental results. The concepts, observations and experimental results of old paradigm are shaped/biased by assuming the seed axioms are absolute Truths and derived by the efforts of countless researchers spanning decades of even centuries by relying on the seed axioms. Any new fledgling paradigm proposes is a new set of seed axioms, which might be a result of accidental discovery of flaws in the seed axioms of existing paradigm.
only refused the basic sciencetific thuth the knolowgh of mankind can be broken
Raju -
It is interesting that you start with that comment by Planck, because, though I agree to an extent, I also think I saw elements in your arguments with which I also agree that sound like "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." (Newton to Hooke?) Your main point seems to be that if the starting point is flawed, so is all that follows. I see that in hypothesis testing, where people may finally be seeing better that an isolated p-value, being a function of sample size, is not a good 'measure' by any means to make a decision. (I have seen it said recently that it may not have been intended to be used as it often is now anyway.) As another example, I have seen model-based sampling and estimation for finite populations ridiculed by design-based-only survey statisticians. Some ideas are more popular at different times and in different contexts than others.
But an argument based on Planck's 'die and get out of the way' quote has been used by a statistical methods book and software peddler, who has infuriated me that he has tried to convince others that he has something "new" that they need to buy (while mentioning distribution-free statistics, tree analysis, and jackknife - none of which are new). He strongly indicates that all statisticians have been doing things incorrectly, and he is here to save the day. Yet I notice that he brags about calculating exact p-values, apparently not knowing any better. He also has repeatedly made a derogatory comment about a procedure that can be demonstrably good. All this, apparently, just to sell his products.
So we have to filter everything carefully. Yes, many dubious practices have been prolonged and made more convoluted. I have seen people try to prop-up flawed procedures and just perpetuate the problems. But also I have seen this caused by people not knowing or understanding the basics upon which they should have been relying.
We need to build on old work, but as you said, be ready to question old foundations on occasion.
So there are two sides to this. We have to learn from and build on the past, but we should understand these principles ourselves. That is a big challenge to humanity.
I am retired now, but one quote of my own keeps coming to mind. It is something that I often thought when dealing with some of the other more 'experienced' people on the job: Experience does not count, if you are not paying attention.
Cheers - Jim
Dr. Knaub,
Thank you for your insight full answer. I agree, if he trying to sell some thing that is not first principle Truth (i.e. seed axiom). Any first principle or absolute Truth (e.g. is there exist any force of attraction between any two bodies having mass?, Dark matter or the Earth is not static at the center) unlikely have any immediate financial value, but have immense scientific value.
For example, Galileo was disliked for trying to expose error in the seed axiom or then deeply entrenched geocentric paradigm, which had been evolving for centuries and resulted in a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Likewise, discoveries of Dr. Fritz Zwicky were not popular, because they contradicted then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Both have no immediate financial value, but immense value for advancing mankind’s scientific knowledge.
Dr. Knaub, it might be fascinating to see this in the perspective of the researcher struggling to expose an error in seed axioms of a deeply entrenched paradigm. Lets explore both perspectives: Imagine if you are a famous scientist and expert in Newtonian concepts. Imagine a person unknown in the field and have no credentials approached you in a scientific conference, for example, identified himself as a patent office clerk and says that he made few discoveries that can prove that the Newton’s discoveries are not entirely accurate.
If you are extremely polite and nice person, what would you say when you feel that he is either crazy or trying to scam you? In such conference, you are so busy and so many things on your plate, so you do every thing you possible to avoid that person. Dr. Shechtman said. "I was a subject of ridicule and lectures about the basics of crystallography.
I am sure, about 98% of the people are like you said: But an argument based on Planck's 'die and get out of the way' quote has been used by a statistical methods book and software peddler, who has infuriated me that he has tried to convince others that he has something "new" that they need to buy (while mentioning distribution-free statistics, tree analysis, and jackknife - none of which are new).
So the reaction is hostile or sarcastic. Most of the experts are not so nice and polite, so they would snub him, some politely others not so politely. Of course, they feel it is justified and he disserves it.
Now put your self in the place of a person, who discovered a basic flaw in the seed axioms of a deeply entrenched paradigm. You are not questioning the validity of the concepts of the paradigm, which are of course are accurate, if the seed axioms are accurate. The seed axioms deeply buried under layers up on layers of concepts, observations evolved for many decades and seed axioms were forgotten decades ago. The concepts are created by employing impeccable reasoning supported by irrefutable observations (nonetheless they might not be much different from accuracy of retrograde motion, which any one can observe by standing on the Earth and if the Earth is moving, why the moon is following).
Also assume, you are respected and never used to snubbing, because you are straight shooter and always tell the Truth, which you believe in (no mater whatever is the consequences). This is an asset, if you are in agreement with deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. But this will becomes a curse, when you start disputing deeply entrenched conventional wisdom.
If you try hard to expose error, you would encounter snubbing, ridicules and thinly veiled sarcasm/insults day after day, week after week and month after month for years. You question your own sanity and end up spending months are years to make sure you didn’t make any mistake.
Imagine yourself in this situation, facing such reduces, insults and humiliating snubs. Different people react differently to such harsh responses. Dr. Shechtman endured politely. But Dr. Fritz Zwicky, responded equally harshly, for example, by calling opponents “spiracle bustards”. Many people in that situation would become defensive and react in unexpected manner.
Most experts expect a proof within minutes, which is impossible when you are contradicting whole body of knowledge comprising thousands of concepts and observations accumulated over decades of centuries. How Galileo could provide a convincing proof, if one asks, if the Earth is moving, why it the Moon is not left behind (how can the Moon follow the Earth that is moving at 18Miles/second?). How can he answer, except ask them to observe the Moons of Jupiter (which later names as Galilean moons)? No one wants to waste valuable time (weeks or even months) observing through a Telescope, to invalidate such claims, which they considered crazy.
Most people choose a field they are interested for making a living. They likely make a scientific discovery in the field they have been working for decades. Many people tried to discredit Galileo by attributing ulterior motives, because he was making his living as an astronomer by predicting planetary positions. I don’t believe, it is unethical to promote any discovery (even if it helps him do better financially in making his living) as long as he is 100% convinced that the discovery is error free and absolute Truth. Is it fair to attribute ulterior motives to discredit a scientific Truth? Does it make any difference, if he changed his profession before trying to convince such scientific Truth?
I believe, it is not only interesting but also fascinating to see in the perspective of an unknown researcher, who discovered a flaw in seed axioms of deeply entrenched paradigm. For example, assume he has taken a week unpaid vacation form regular work and spent lot of money to attend a scientific conference to share his discoveries with respected scientists in the field, but ended up being snubbed or ridiculed. After few times, (as long as he is determined to not give up on his scientific discovery), he gets accustomed to such treatment and different people react differently to such snubbing or humiliation.
Best Regards,
Raju
There is an old saying: "You can't fight city hall." It just means it is always difficult to deal with 'the establishment.' I've seen plenty of that. Just have to do the best you can under the circumstances.
The astonishing thing is that, flaws of seed axioms (i.e. first principles) of CBSE/CBSD are in plain sight and yet most researchers and scientists don’t want to see the facts and listen to reason.
Frederick S. Perls wrote in his book “Gestalt Therapy Verbatim” that: Albert Einstein once said to me: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.” But what is much more widespread than the actual stupidity is the playing stupid, turning off your ear, not listening, not seeing.
The scientific progress is discovering new facts for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. The scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truth, so the sacred duty of real scientists is pursuing absolute truth. Ignoring facts or truths is abdication of this sacred duty.
The geocentric model evolved by relying on seed axiom (or first principle) that “the Earth is at the static at the center”. This seed axiom was never validated for about 1000 years, but now we know that this seed axiom was fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately a paradigm or gestalt shift didn’t happen until a new and more accurate heliocentric model was fully evolved in parallel by a break away group of philosophers (i.e. researchers) such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and finally Newton’s discoveries such as laws of motion, universal gravity and calculus.
This is a slow and painful process, which we can’t afford to repeat in the 21st century. The way, I believe, it should happen is, is this seed axiom (i.e. first principle) “the Earth is static at the center” is accurate? If the Earth is moving, mankind need to investigate many possibilities, such as, is there any planet at the center? What are the paths of the planets? Are they circling around any thing?
Of course, asking such questions and investigation by thousands of researchers around the world, quickly results in multiple theories and flawed theories can be quickly eliminated. For example, one might propose that Venus or mercury might be at the center, another might propose Sun might be at the center. This kind of investigation quickly leads to discovery of Truth.
For example, it is critical to discover the absolute truth such as “there exist an attraction between any two bodies having mass”. The kind of discovery could launch independent investigation by countless researchers around the world to quantify the force of attraction by relying on then existing knowledge such as Kepler’s laws. Few might propose and investigate that the attraction is directly proportional to the inverse of the distance, few other might propose and investigate that the attraction is directly proportional to the inverse of the distance-cube, and so on. Likewise, few might propose that the attraction is directly proportional to the sum of the squares of the masses. Even simple experiments and observations eliminate flawed proposals.
The point is, we can’t ignore errors in seed axioms (i.e. first principles), if such error exist in seed axioms. We in 21st century can’t afford to stick to the geocentric model until Newton’s discoveries for the alternative heliocentric model fully developed. We need to investigate error, so that we can direct scientific research in the right direction to discover the truth.
I know for fact, that the existing definitions for software components are fundamentally flawed, where the definitions are seed axioms for software engineering in general and CBSE/CBSD in particular.
I also I know for fact and can provide irrefutable proof, that there exists an accurate description for physical functional components, where the accurate description can be a set of essential characteristics uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component.
I also I know for fact and can provide irrefutable proof, that there exists an accurate description for CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products, where the accurate description can be a set of essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by design of each and every know physical product.
If we can discover the essential properties of the physical functional components, why it is not possible to achieve real CBSD (CBD for software) for software products by using real software components (where real CBSD and real software components must satisfy the respective accurate descriptions for the CBD of physical products and the physical functional components)?
The important thing is investigating the validity of seed axioms at the root of existing paradigm. It will launch a global search for truth to discover accurate seed axioms, if the existing seed axioms are found to be flawed and the scientific community aware of possible flaw in the existing seed axioms (i.e. first principles).
The first principles I am proposing are:
(i) there exists an accurate description for the physical functional components and it is possible to invent equivalent software components that can satisfy the accurate description for most practical purposes, and
(ii) there exists an accurate description for the CBD of physical products and it is possible to invent equivalent CBSD (CBD for software) that can satisfy the accurate description for most practical purposes.
If my proposals are right, then no software part can be a component without satisfying the accurate description. Likewise, no software design can be real CBSD without satisfying the accurate description. It is very simple logic, if another planet can be at the center, how can the Earth be at the center?
I made a proposal for the accurate descriptions for the CBD of physical products and the physical functional components in my web site: http://real-software-components.com/. It is not very important at this stage, if my proposals are like proposing that Venus is at the center and/or paths of planets are perfectly circular. If my proposals are not accurate they can be replaced by more accurate facts, but can we afford to stick to baseless and flawed seed axioms (i.e. first principles) for centuries until an alternative accurate paradigm establishes itself (at a cost of trillions of dollars to world economy).
Unfortunately I accidentally stumbled on the real components and hierarchies of replaceable components. So I proposed them first. May be my focus must be on exposing the error in the seed axiom of the existing paradigm. Even if my descriptions are not fully accurate, they are a small step in the right direction. No meaningful scientific progress is possible even by applying brute force (in the wrong direction) by relying on flawed seed axioms.
All I am asking is to validate the seed axioms. If they found to be flawed, I am sure there would be countless proposals for the descriptions, and most of them would be quickly eliminated and we will end up with accurate descriptions that are good enough for all practical purposes and most importantly this puts the scientific progress in the right tracks. The flaw in the existing seed axioms derailed the progress, so we ended up in software crisis.
Warm Regards,
Raju
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering