Dear Friends,
Relying on a flawed belief, preconceived notion or prejudice diverts research efforts into a wrong path and investing more and more resources to advance the knowledge in the wrong path leads to a crisis.
When a huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) is acquired and accumulated (e.g. for longtime for many decades by a large community researchers - tens of thousands of researchers) in a wrong path, this BoK fundamentally alters mankind’s perception of reality.
This alteration of perception of reality would be so profound that, even the objective reality would appear to be strange, insane and bizarre or absurd. For example, the flawed belief “the Earth is static at the center” 2300 years ago diverted research efforts into a wrong path that profoundly altered mankind’s perception of reality by 16th century.
A huge BoK had been acquired and accumulated for 1800 years until 16th century in the wrong path (i.e. by relying on the 2300-year-old flawed belief), which resulted in a fundamentally altered mankind’s perception of reality known as geocentric paradigm by 16th century. Many people were prosecuted, killed or imprisoned for questioning the geocentric paradigm until early 17th century.
When flawed assumptions, no matter how many years old, are turned upside down to show the right path, it results in a new serious or string of discoveries of facts and righteous theories (where each is based on previous discoveries), which can bring about a revolution in current thinking and practice.
The greatest scientific revolution in the history of science was not due to a new discovery but due to putting research efforts on the right path by exposing flawed belief (i.e. The Earth is Static) that diverted research efforts into a wrong path.
If the 2300-year-old lie hadn’t been 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 at the root of the 16th century dominant geocentric paradigm.
If any one of the basic discoveries (e.g. there exists a force of attraction between any 2 bodies having mass; there exists a relation between the mass and energy; or about light) were flawed, it must had diverted mankind’s research efforts into a wrong path and no meaningful progress would have been possible without fixing the mistake. This is true for any one of the series of basic discoveries (like a string of pearls) made during past 400 years.
Unfortunately, the Body of Knowledge (i.e. BoK) for existing dominant software engineering paradigm has been acquired and accumulated by relying on 50 to 60-years-old flawed assumptions about components and the CBE (Component Based Engineering). This flawed BoK altered perception of reality, so today objective reality of CBE is perceived to be strange, insane or absurd.
If the assumptions made 60 years ago about components and CBE are flawed, exposing the flawed assumptions puts research efforts on the right path that leads to new string of discoveries and invention and a revolution in software engineering. I have conclusive proof and evidence to demonstrate that basic assumptions about components and CBE at the very foundation of existing dominant software engineering paradigm are flawed.
I have been humiliated, insulted and ostracized, when politely request for an opportunity to present evidence for exposing the 50 to 60 year-old flawed beliefs at the foundation of existing software engineering paradigm. It is not 16th century to prosecute me. Lucky me!
If any theory (e.g. “the String Theory”) appears to be ended up in dead-end, basic tacit assumptions at the foundation that were slipped through gaps untested at the time of formation of the theory decades ago may have diverted research efforts into a wrong path. It is the duty of qualified researchers to find and validate such hidden assumptions (slipped through cracks untested) for putting research effort on the right path.
Today I am certainly a qualified researcher and scientist in software engineering and computer science. About 16 years ago, I stumbled onto such tacit assumptions at the foundation that were slipped through gaps untested at the time of formation of software engineering paradigm 50 to 60 years ago.
I have been acquired and accumulated huge evidence and facts for past 16 years for exposing flawed assumptions at the very foundation of the exiting dominant software engineering paradigm.
Unfortunately, many members of community of software researchers and computer science failed to do their duty by refusing to investigate the evidence and facts.
P.S: Many snubbed or humiliated me by claiming that he/she is a renowned scientist or researcher without even having basic understanding of moral or ethical obligations of a scientist or researcher (please see attached PDF).
Isn’t it basic commonsense: Bad clues, preconceived notions or prejudice divert any investigation into a wrong path? Is it hard to understand this simple rule: Flawed assumptions divert research efforts into a wrong path? The research effort can’t be put onto right path without exposing the flawed assumptions.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
It seems to me that scientists operating in various economic and social systems may take into account slightly different determinants of the research objectives. This can generate differences in the interpretation of the same research results. Besides, it happens that the results of scientific research arise as secondary and not primary in relation to formulated research thesis. It should not be so in the bitter, but sometimes it happens.
I invite you to the discussion.
communication between researchers are now too fast, hence truth/fact can be find in short times. Research is now independent of beliefs/religion and oppression
Dear Dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz,
Thank you for your answer. I am asking this question in the context of hard sciences, which deals with objective reality such as nature or properties of physical things or phenomena.
We may not know certain things (e.g. internal structure viruses or elementary particles), but we are certain that there is immutable objective reality/Truth. Our purpose of research efforts is pursuit of such objective Truth, which includes getting closer and closer to the objective reality/Truth.
If we make a wrong assumption (by ignoring the reality) and rely on the assumption, it would divert the research efforts into a wrong path. Software engineers made such mistake 50 to 60 years ago, when defining basic building blocks for CBE/CBD (Component Based Design/Engineering) such as components.
For example, let me quote a simple fact: In the context of CBD/CBE of products such as cars, airplanes, computers or cell-pones, what is the striking difference between kind of parts that are certainly components, and all the other kinds of parts that are certainly not components?
The answer is simple: In the context of CBD/CBE of such products, no part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled and/or disassembled. Relying on this fact would lead to software engineering paradigm that is analogous to the electronic engineering paradigm, where each complex product is (i) partitioned into components, (ii) where each of the component can be designed, built and tested individually, and (iii) the product is built by plugging in all the components into a motherboard/PCB, after all the components are build and tested.
The above engineering paradigm is 5 times more powerful than existing software engineering paradigm. Software engineers didn’t realize this simple fact, which diverted research effort into a wrong path. Today software engineering paradigm is analogous to civil engineering paradigm for constructing building as per this wiki-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture
Best Regards,
Raju