Dear Mr. Braun,

I agree. I am making the same point. All the matured paradigms are extremely crowded. It is despairing to young researchers, because few dozen noted researchers already have been working for decades on any topic he can possible consider for his research. Many mature disciplines appear to reach an end.

For example, past 30 years most software engineers and researchers came to the conclusion component reuse and CBD/CBE for software came to an end. They quote predictions made by Dr. Brooks and others Turing award winners more than 30 and 40 years ago still holding and they say nothing in sight that can prove those predictions wrong.

Instead of investigating new ideas with open mind for exploring new avenues, most young researchers join other brilliant fools (by resorting to hostile attacks) in suppressing new ideas and facts that subvert existing dominant paradigm by exposing 50 to 60 year old untested and unproven flawed primitive beliefs that were at the foundation of the dominant paradigm.

It is baffling, instead of investigating obvious facts by using common sense, they would rather waste their lives on the geocentric paradox of the software engineering that was rooted and evolved by relying on untested primeval flawed beliefs.

They choose to blindly follow the geocentric paradox rather than use common sense. I am sure, most of them longing for simpler times. Normal science in a dominant paradigm is very complex and has little left to find.

Revolutionary science is simple and primitive because it only challenges the basic untested primordial beliefs by looking at the evidence and facts objectively with open mind and using common sense.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Friends,

A revolutionary science requires exposing flawed basic beliefs that are very foundation of a dominant paradigm (according to Thomas Kuhn).

For example, the 2300-year-old belief “the Earth is static at the centre” is very foundation for 16th century dominant geocentric paradigm. That is, the BoK (Body of Knowledge) that painted the 16th century dominant paradigm (i.e. shaped the perception of reality) had been acquired and accumulated for 1800 years by relying on the flawed belief.

Advancements such as inventions of telescope allowed researchers to expose the flawed belief.

Advancements in knowledge and technology made the answer to question simple and primitive: Which planet is at the center of our planetary system. Wrong answer 2300 years ago diverted research efforts into a wrong path until 16th century.

Likewise, advancements made during past 50 years made the answer to this question common sense and primitive: What is the characteristics that is essential for the components to achieve real CBD/CBE (Component Based Engineering and Design)?

Wrong answer to this question 50 to 60 years ago diverted software engineering research efforts into a wrong path resulting in the geocentric paradox of software engineering.

In the context of CBD/CBE of countless products we know and use every day (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, equipment such as printers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factory): No part can be a component in the context of CBE/CBD, if the component is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

Is it hard to validate the above answer?

Although it is not hard to invent and use software components that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled for building software products, today no known kind of so called software component is designed and/or conducive to be assembled.

Is it hard to validate the evidence for the statement in above and below paragraph?

No one ever even tried to invent software components that can be assembled and disassembled.

Except designing and engineering of software products, designing and engineering of no other product is affected by such spaghetti design. This is the root cause infamous spaghetti code and software crisis.

When computer science and software engineering were in infancy during 1960s, many assumptions (or tenets) were made mostly based on consensus of few influential thought leaders.

Just few influential old people defined or dictated the tenets based on their preconceived notions and wishful thinking (by ignoring reality and facts). Those primitive untested tenets (or assumptions) are foundation for the existing dominant software engineering paradigm.

Software engineering in general and compilers in particular made substantial progress during past 50 years, more than enough, for testing and validating those primitive assumptions.

The 50-year-old untested assumptions for the so called components and CBD/CBE for software are very foundation of the existing dominant software engineering paradigm.

That is, BoK for existing dominant paradigm has been acquiring and accumulating for past 50 years by relying on those untested beliefs.

Such beliefs can't be guarded as unquestionable sacred truths for eternity. Advancements in knowledge and technologies allow testing and validation of such beliefs that are foundation of any paradigm.

Unfortunately, software experts and brilliant fools guarding those primitive untested assumptions as sacred unquestionable truths for eternity and feel that it is arrogant, insulting and disrespectful to question those primitive untested sacred tenets.

When questioned the sacred tenets, many researchers reacted as if I am offending religious sentiments by committing blasphemy. Such new paradigm opens unprecedented opportunities, but many experts feel that it is a threat.

How can we repeat, even in the 21st century, this kind of trivial mistake, that was well documented in 17th century and well know? How can we forget the valuable lesion mankind learned hard way in 17th century due sacrifices of Galileo and others?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Dear Friends,

Except designing and engineering of software products, designing and engineering of no other complex product is affected by the infamous spaghetti design (or code) and engineering crisis comparable to the infamous software crisis.

The designers of countless physical products successfully eliminated the infamous spaghetti design (or code) and crisis by using specific kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled and disassembled, where the specific kind of parts are widely known and/or referred to as components.

In the context of CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Engineering and/or Design and Development) of countless kinds of products we know and use every day (e.g. cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, equipment such as printers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factory to name a few): No part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

Today there exist many kinds of so called components for software products, but no known kind of software components is designed and/or conducive to be assembled. Designing and engineering of each and every complex software product is affected by infamous software crisis and spaghetti design (or code).

Designing and engineering of no other kind of complex product has affected by such crisis or spaghetti design (or code), because they are designed by using specific kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled and disassembled. Where the specific kind of parts are widely known or referred to as components.

There is no valid reason, why designers and engineers of complex software products can’t eliminate such crisis and spaghetti design (or code) by using specific kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

It is not hard to invent components for software that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled for building each and every complex software product by assembling such components that are conducive to be assembled and disassembled.

This clearly shows that the 50 years old basic untested beliefs about components at the root and that are used as foundation for building or evolving existing dominant software engineering paradigm for past 50 years must be challenged.

According to the most authoritative and widely accepted book “The Structure Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, normal science, would never challenge the basic beliefs or tenets at the root of any dominant paradigm. There is no other book or person more authoritative on paradigm shifts and structure of scientific revolutions.

In fact, the widely acclaimed authoritative book by Dr. Kuhn says: Normal science suppresses novelties and evidence which undermine the foundations of a dominant paradigm. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that are foundation for the dominant paradigm.

There is no exception to this rule: Any dominant paradigm can be and must be subverted, if the basic received beliefs (i.e. assumptions) at the root and are foundation for the dominant paradigm are flawed.

There is no exception to this rule: Subverting any such flawed dominant paradigm of any scientific or engineering discipline always results in a revolution in the scientific or engineering discipline.

It is not hard to prove that the basic beliefs (that are 50 years old and) at the root and are foundation of the existing dominant software engineering paradigm are flawed. The BoK (Body of Knowledge) that shaped perception of reality for existing dominant software engineering paradigm has been acquired and accumulated by relying on the untested assumptions made 50 to 60 years ago.

As predicted by the acclaimed book, influential researchers and scientists have been taking great pains to defend flawed assumption that are at foundation by supressing novelties and evidence even by resorting to personal attacks to silence anyone trying to show evidence, which can expose the flawed assumption that are used as very foundations for building the dominant software engineering paradigm.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Don't let a flawed society trick you into thinking that there's nothing else to discover. Personal and economic incentives can lead anyone to suppress the Socratic method when it threatens to topple their personal or economic fiefdom. Credence should not be given to unsubstantiated theories that proceed from tacit assumptions (e.g. we can't measure it, therefore it is inherently stochastic, as in the Schrodinger's Cat paradox) and the extension of mathematical tools as though they were physical phenomena (e.g. gravity + Gaussian coordinate systems = wormholes), yet vast academic, literary and cinematic empires have been built upon both. These are not physics problems, they are problems in social science (group psychology) and in the theory of governance and leadership (counterproductive incentive structures). "What departs the Way is already doomed" according to Lao Tzu, and it's fair to say that what escapes from the Socratic method is not science.

Dear Dr. Sieving,

Let me make an interesting observation. Normal Science for advancing a complex dominant paradigm requires brilliant peoples, who could master the huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) acquired and accumulated for many decades for the dominant paradigm.

The influential book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn says: Normal science solves puzzles that are posed by the prevailing paradigm but does not challenge the paradigm's basic tenets.

One must be brilliant to make any contribution (e.g. by solving a scientific puzzle) to any topic in normal science, because many other researchers also working of solving the same puzzle posed by each of the topics. Hence, one must be able to find a solution for a puzzle, where many experts already has been trying and failed to solve the puzzle.

With little luck, it is much simpler to start a scientific revolution, particularly for ordinary people like me who cannot solve such complex puzzles by mastering the huge BoK of dominant paradigm. Please refer to attached PDF.

Isn’t ironic that starting scientific revolution is much simpler than making even a small contribution to a dominant paradigm?

It is very hard even for a brilliant researcher to make a small contribution to a dominant paradigm.

But even person having ordinary intelligence could start scientific revolution with curiosity and little luck.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Chiluvuri,

Thanks firstly for the compliment but I only have a Master's degree. BS in Biology and MS in Computer Science.

I think you've captured the principle of scientific advancement quite nicely. Once in a while someone comes along and topples the existing paradigm in a certain field, then over time others pile onto the new paradigm an increasingly cumbersome body of knowledge.

In theoretical physics, Einstein worked in reverse, starting with intuitive leaps and working backwards to establish the mathematical basis. For special relativity, the founding intuitive assumption was that the speed of light can't (just can't!) be different for someone chasing a photon than it is for someone watching from a reference frame. For GR, it was that a gravitational acceleration can't (just can't!) be distinguished over local intervals from an inertial acceleration.

Over in technology, while most of the world was wrangling over how to arrange the buttons on electronic devices, Richard Garwin of IBM invented the touch screen. The chief complaint back then was that people would not tolerate the finger smudges on their device screens. The wrangling over button arrangements went on and on until Steve Jobs and company obliterated most of the buttons with the introduction of the Newton and later the iPhone. The world had to be taught a practical lesson in order to make the idea stick. Now everyone's trying to make a better buttonless smartphone. Finger gestures are all the rage.

In every body of knowledge and in every technology, there is the essence - the goal in understanding or applicatioan - and the myriad manifestations that reduce the idea to a predictive theory or the application to practical use. There's no need to get lost in the manifestations if all you want to do is rethink the entire approach. The way to start with that is to question the basic assumptions upon which the idea or technology was originally built.

To topple the paradigm you have to have strong convictions and even get a little angry. Einstein was known later in life as a mild-mannered genius but some of the letters he wrote to his closest friends and colleagues back when he was wracking his brain for answers were downright nasty (but funny in retrospect).

What broke the ice for special relativity (which started with the relativity of simultaneity) was a conversation that Einstein had with a Swiss Patent Office colleague named Michelangelo Besso, considered addle-brained and incoherent by most others, followed by a long, brain-oxygenating walk in the Alps. A conversation with "M. Besso" was Einstein's only reference in his SR paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Besso was addle-brained but somehow very helpful, it seems. He helped Einstein become just crazy enough to start a profound revolution in our understanding of the cosmos.

Dear Mr. Sieving,

I too have only MS in Computer Science (have no doctorate). Thank you for interesting insights and observations.

You made very interesting statement:

In every body of knowledge and in every technology, there is the essence - the goal in understanding or application - and the myriad manifestations that reduce the idea to a predictive theory or the application to practical use. There's no need to get lost in the manifestations if all you want to do is rethink the entire approach. The way to start with that is to question the basic assumptions upon which the idea or technology was originally built.

I see this as 2 parts: (1) Acquiring valid objective knowledge or wisdom and (2) application of knowledge (or wisdom) to invent useful things.

I know for fact that our beloved computer science and software engineering is rooted in 50 to 60 years flawed assumptions. I worked for 12 years before I come to this conclusion. I have been struggling to expose the flawed belief for past few years.

Few obvious facts about designing and engineering of large or complex products:

1. We know and use countless products such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, ACs, equipment such as printers, airplanes, machines or machinery for factory to name a few, where each of the product is build by “assembling” few dozens to hundreds or even thousands of “components”.

2. Even a very large or complex product that is built by “assembling” hundreds or even tens of thousands of “components” is not affected any kind spaghetti design (or code).

3. Only designing and engineering of software products is affected by spaghetti code (or design), which is manifested into software crisis. Why designing of software products is affected by spaghetti code (or design)?

4. Almost every other known complex product we know, except software products, is built by “assembling” many “components”. Not even single such product affected by any kind of designing or engineering crisis, comparable to the software crisis.

5. There is no valid reason why we can’t eliminate the spaghetti code or design (that is manifested into infamous software crisis) by building each complex software product by “assembling” many real “components”.

Usefulness of any invention is subjective based on aesthetic factors such as preferences, practicality, skills and perception, which further subjective based on context. Please kindly refer to attached PDF. I have been struggling for years to reduce objective theoretical knowledge about the physical components and assembling into subjective useful inventions for software.

P.S: Isn’t it a fact that existing BoK (Body of Knowledge) about components and CBD/CBE is illusion, if the BoK has been acquired and accumulated for 50 years by relying on flawed beliefs? How can you make experts (those consider themselves to be experts on components and CBD/CBE) accept this fact?

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Raju,

The difference with software is that of the few managers who take the time to look at it, most don't understand it. They can see how mechanical components fit together into a working machine but the software is usually invisible to them. It therefore takes on the mantle of mysticism and attracts people with the gift of gab who realize that management will proceed on staffing and design decisions not by what's in the software but by what people say about the software and about whomever they perceive as a threat. This makes it easy for fools to bandy the software about as a political football without having to know much about it while the quiet few who understand it labor to get it working in this caustic environment.

Again, it's a problem of sorting out the vocal fools from the quiet professionals and keeping the fools out of the design and production effort. We're back to psychology and the social sciences, where vast strides must be made if technology is to progress at its natural pace. Managers have to know how to assess the people who work for them, and must themselves be screened for psychopathy and megalomania. Social problems like these dwarf those facing us in technology.

David