Dear Friends,
Sir. Karl Popper and Dr. Thomas Kuhn are the most respected 20th century philosophers of science, whose contributions gave us deeper insights into the very nature of our knowledge such as not so good state of the BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising many imperfect unquestionable “received beliefs” for each of the scientific disciplines (particularly in any newer discipline such as computer science, where the simple and otherwise obvious mistakes that are not hard to eliminate).
I strongly believe, every researcher must have firm grasp of the gist (or synopsis) of their great works. One of the best informative video is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ – This provides the gist of scientific method of Dr. Popper in simple laymen terms. I watched this video many times, which helped me see the True essence of Dr. Popper’s “scientific method”. It summarizes the nature of the knowledge, how one can get closer to the Truth by testing and challenging knowledge (e.g. theories or received beliefs perceived to be “self-evident” or first principles that are arrived by “consensuses” by wise men or though leaders).
On the other hand, Dr. Kuhn summarizes the imperfect state of the of the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for each of the scientific disciplines. I read book of Dr. Kuhn, but it was bit harder to comprehend. Then I stumbled onto the great synopsis, by Frank Pajares, for the Book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Dr. Thomas Kuhn: http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html and https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html.
The above web pages have great summary and synopsis. It is a God sent for me. Dr. Pajares must have worked very hard to extract the essence of each of the chapters of the book by Dr. Kuhn. The first paragraph in first section 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. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. 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".
This summarizes three common mistakes of researchers (1) Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like, (2) To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations, and (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".
Unfortunately, if we don’t learn from this kind of past mistakes and wisdom passed onto us by great philosophers, we are doomed to repeat them again and again at a huge cost. In my field (computer science) have been doing this mistake again and again at a huge cost. For example, many respected researchers resorting to personal attacks and insults to defend “received beliefs” and to suppress novelties (rooted in objective reality and backed by proof), which can expose flawed received beliefs at the root of the existing CBSD (Component Based Software Design) paradox.
The second chapter is about “normal science”, where 1st paragraph says:
Normal science "means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice". These achievements must be sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity and sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners (and their students) to resolve. These achievements can be called paradigms. Students study these paradigms in order to become members of the particular scientific community in which they will later practice.
It summarized root cause for most harmful and insidious mistake: “past scientific achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice".
The cause is: What kind of proven scientific achievements a fledgling new scientific discipline could supply as the foundation for its further practice? The primeval paradigm of a scientific discipline would be filled with many “consensuses”, because knowledge and technologies were so primitive to validate or question most of them. There would be little or no concrete scientific achievements for providing sound foundation for further inquiry/research.
The Kuhnian paradigm-shift from geocentric paradox to heliocentric model transformed basic sciences from pseudo-science into hard-science. Usually the first Kuhnian paradigm shift in any scientific discipline is highly contentious (faces fierce resistance when exposing flawed “consensus”, which are considered sacred self-evident Truths by the establishment).
If one discovers anything subsequently (i.e. after paradigm shift), he must provide a falsifiable proof to be accepted. No discovery can be valid without a proof (backed by repeatable empirical evidence). Hence, no fact or theory can be added to the BoK (Body Of Knowledge) of later matured paradigms of any scientific discipline without being supported by proof backed by evidence. But such stringent rules are often ignored or overlooked when forming primeval paradigm (i.e. the first primitive paradigm formed when the discipline was in the infancy).
For example, no one discovered (e.g. by providing a proof) and no one questioned the lie “the Earth is static” (at the root of geocentric paradox). On the other hand, the Truth “the Sun is at centre” faced fierce hostile resistance and undergone most intense scrutiny in the history of science. Likewise, no one discovered (e.g. by providing a proof) and no one yet dared to question the validity of each of the “consensuses” that are at the root of the existing deeply entrenched huge BoK of the CBSD/CBSE paradox, where the “consensuses” were made up almost out of thin air 50 years ago, (based on wishful thinking or fantasy) without any basis in reality or fact.
The main reason for the First Kuhnian paradigm-shift of any scientific discipline is most complex and contentious: The first paradigm shift of any scientific discipline replaces most of such untested received beliefs (that are fiercely defended as sacred unquestionable Truths for eternity) in the BoK that painted the picture of old perception of reality (old paradigm) by comprehensive BoK comprising large set of theories or facts (each of which faces hostile resistance and one is lucky enough get a chance, it must be supported by proof backed by evidence and reasoning to overcome intense scrutiny) for painting a new reality (i.e. new paradigm).
For example, the basic “first principles” (or new discoveries of Truth such as “the Sun is a center”) face huge skepticism and fierce resistance from the establishment that ensures rigorous scrutiny of each fact or theory in the BoK for the new paradigm. The 100 times bigger problem is, no one would give an opportunity to present the proof. Also, also it is impossible to get an opportunity to present counter evidence to the “beliefs” in the prevailing paradigm. Even politely requesting for proof for any sacred belief (“the Earth is static”) of old paradigm elicits hostile response. Trying to present any theory or fact (in support of new paradigm) that appears to be contradicting any sacred belief of old paradigm elicits hostile response or insults.
Similarly, the existing CBSD paradox was rooted in 50 years old unproven sacred “consensuses” (agreed when computer science was in its infancy). The software experts feel offended or consider that it is sacrilegious, if anyone requests proof for such sacred unquestionable “consensus”. Also try to offer counter evidence to “consensus” faces hostile resistance. I know that, my discoveries about the nature of components and CBD would face the most intense scrutiny. I am prepared for that. Any truth Discovery shines more brightly under intense scrutiny. I enjoy such intense scrutiny – I feel, any researcher would enjoy intense scrutiny of his proud discovery. But how could any discovery could even survive, if the establishment determined to deliberately ignore, hide or kill it. I didn’t expect this kind of hostile uncivilized attacks in the 21st century: Most software experts feel offended by the Truths and many of them are resorting to insults or personal attacks to silence me and to kill the Truth.
Do researchers need to make huge sacrifices (e.g. certainly ruining their careers, reputation and livelihood) even in the 21st century to expose a flawed primordial “consensuses” agreed when a scientific discipline was in its infancy? It is painful that, when researcher feels terrified of hostile reaction for speaking Truth openly even in the 21st century due the ignorance of the research community.
For example, software “thought leaders” (or wise men) agreed upon certain untested “consensus” (that are flawed) 50 to 60 years ago. The research efforts of software researchers have been relying on the “consensuses” (believed to be self-evident facts). These research efforts spanning over 50 years resulted in accumulating huge BoK (Body of Knowledge), which must be 25 to 50 times bigger than the BoK existed in 17th century for geocentric paradox. I have been struggling for nearly a decade for exposing flawed “consensuses” (today believed to be self-evident facts for eternity) against huge resistance from the software establishment.
In light of the widely accepted and most acclaimed observation of the most respected philosophers of science Dr. Popper and Dr. Kuhn, why researcher making simple documented proven mistakes again and again that are costing them dearly? What kind of lasting contributions any one can possibly make to the geocentric paradox of their scientific discipline, if they fiercely defend untested flawed “belief” and waste their hard work and efforts on creating epicycles by relying on flawed “beliefs”?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Thesis The complementary perspectives of “scientific methods” of Po...
Dear Raju,
Your question has reasonable answers. One of them comes from an article published in Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science
They have an interesting observation, “He once told me that to fix the problems in psychology, it might be simpler to toss out 150 years of research and start again; I’m still not sure whether or not he was serious.”
That is a standard situation in case of Paradigm Shift. A Paradigm Shift affects basic categories and opens new ways of understanding and explanation of phenomena.
The Classical Paradigm Shift happened when the human kind changes world view from Geocentric to the Heliocentric point of view. The cause of every Paradigm Shift is new facts and measurements inaccessible at the time of creation of “fundamental theories.”
You can also read my article ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions’ published recently (especially section ten that explains De Witte Findings and Aurora Effect) if you have a good background in physics.
The article is accessible at the following path.
https://globaljournals.org
Recently Published Journals
GJCFR-A Volume 16 Issue 6
(Pages 89-112)
The problem is this. A lot of scientists work in a “Sand Box” of well-known facts and well-established theories. They believe this. They have a lot of knowledge, and the unknown area of knowledge is lesser than known one. That is a huge illusion that persists in the human mind for centuries.
The right point of view is this. We unknown part in any research is many times greater than known one. Therefore, many facts come from the unknown area again and again.
Critical misunderstanding of that process caused stagnation in many areas of modern science because researchers face a lot of unexplainable phenomena which contradict well-established theories.
https://globaljournals.org
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science
Dear Raju,
Your question has reasonable answers. One of them comes from an article published in Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science
They have an interesting observation, “He once told me that to fix the problems in psychology, it might be simpler to toss out 150 years of research and start again; I’m still not sure whether or not he was serious.”
That is a standard situation in case of Paradigm Shift. A Paradigm Shift affects basic categories and opens new ways of understanding and explanation of phenomena.
The Classical Paradigm Shift happened when the human kind changes world view from Geocentric to the Heliocentric point of view. The cause of every Paradigm Shift is new facts and measurements inaccessible at the time of creation of “fundamental theories.”
You can also read my article ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions’ published recently (especially section ten that explains De Witte Findings and Aurora Effect) if you have a good background in physics.
The article is accessible at the following path.
https://globaljournals.org
Recently Published Journals
GJCFR-A Volume 16 Issue 6
(Pages 89-112)
The problem is this. A lot of scientists work in a “Sand Box” of well-known facts and well-established theories. They believe this. They have a lot of knowledge, and the unknown area of knowledge is lesser than known one. That is a huge illusion that persists in the human mind for centuries.
The right point of view is this. We unknown part in any research is many times greater than known one. Therefore, many facts come from the unknown area again and again.
Critical misunderstanding of that process caused stagnation in many areas of modern science because researchers face a lot of unexplainable phenomena which contradict well-established theories.
https://globaljournals.org
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science
Dear Dr. Zade,
In case of hard sciences, sometimes it may be essential to toss out 150 years of research and start again. There is no other way. For example, in case of geocentric paradigm mankind had to toss out 1800 years of research and start over again to create Heliocentric paradigm.
Aren’t we glad that they tossed out 1800 of research? Mankind would be still in the dark ages, if the error at the root of the geocentric paradox were not yet exposed. Even the greatest minds (e.g. Newton, Planck or Einstein) born during past 400 years could not have made any lasting contributions (except may be exposing the 2300 old flawed “consensus” at the root of the geocentric paradox).
Why anyone waste their hard work and passion on the geocentric paradox. For example, what Newton could have achieved, if he were to born 150 years early or the discoveries for heliocentric model were delayed for another 150 years?
Please see this very interesting synopsis of views of the other 20th century philosopher of science Dr. Karl Popper. We can’t hold on to false beliefs. Dr. Popper says that we must let go of our beliefs, if they are disproved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ
If any scientific discipline diverted into a wrong path due to an error (i.e. by relying on primordial received beliefs formed when the discipline was in its infancy) and ended up in the geocentric paradox of the discipline, is there any unspoken rule (I am ignorant of) that few researchers must be sacrificed for putting the discipline in the right path by exposing the error?
Answer (from a religious man) to this core (or central) question gives clear indication for one’s religious belief system: Who is the God. If the answer is “Allah”, it is a clear indication that he is subscribed to Islamic religion. If the answer is “Jesus”, it is a clear indication that he is subscribed to Christianity. Answer to this central or essential question (from a 17th century philosopher or researcher) gave clear indication for which paradigm (i.e. geocentric or heliocentric) he/she was subscribed to: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system?
Likewise, answer to this central (i.e. core) question (from software professional) gives clear indication for one’s belief system (i.e. which engineering paradigm he is subscribing to): What is the purpose and true essence of the CBD (Component Based Design)? The right answer is: eliminating spaghetti design and code, when designing and building a new product. Any other answer is a clear indication one is subscribed to the geocentric paradigm of software engineering.
Dr. Zade, sometimes there is no other way. Except the software products, design and development of no other new product is effected by spaghetti design and code. There is no valid reason for the design and development of software products alone effected by spaghetti design and code, except the ignorance of objective reality about the nature of the CBD of physical products and the essential properties of the physical components.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Zade,
You hit the nail on the head, when you said: The cause of every Paradigm Shift is new facts and measurements inaccessible at the time of creation of “fundamental theories.”
Let me paraphrase it: The cause of every Paradigm Shift is new serendipitous discoveries [of facts] and technologies [including measurements] inconceivable at the time of creation of “fundamental theories” [i.e. "consensuses" by great thinkers, when the discipline was at its infancy] at the root of the prevailing deeply entrenched paradigm (and conventional wisdom) backed by huge BoK (Body of Knowledge), which has been accumulated for decades or centuries by relying on the “fundamental theories”.
Why so many software researchers trying everything in their power defending such flawed untested theories? Any scientific discipline would be diverted into a wrong path, if one or more “fundamental theories” is flawed. If any scientific discipline diverted into a wrong path due to an error (i.e. by relying on primordial received beliefs formed when the discipline was in its infancy) and ended up in the geocentric paradox of the discipline, is there any unspoken rule (I am not informed of) that few researchers must be sacrificed for putting the discipline in the right path by exposing the error?
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Raju,
R: Is there any unspoken rule (I am not informed of) that few researchers must be sacrificed for putting the discipline in the right path by exposing the error?
From my point of view, there is not such rule or anything else like that. There is a critical misunderstanding of the situation in science. As I mentioned, any theory (or any other explanation of anything) exists inside a given paradigm. That paradigm uses some sources of information (facts) and possible operations with facts.
As soon as a researcher faces a new fact that goes out of the paradigm he should understand this. A given fact comes from the outside of the paradigm. As a result, “a well-established” theory that uses a known paradigm becomes unable to explain that fact.
I guess you remember the best example of such a situation from 21-th century physics. There is a theory of Relativity that denies any possibility to detect superluminal velocities in any measurement. However, a few years ago CERN announced its “faster than light neutrino experiment.” They described the experiment step-by-step, but they were unable to explain the result of that experiment because it goes out of the paradigm. In that case, a researcher should detect something beyond the paradigm that he used in preparations of the experiment and try to search for a new paradigm that explains the “unusual result.”
However, you remember the official reaction of the CERN. They deny the result of well-conducted and expensive experiment because nobody saw a possibility of Paradigm Shift.
Despite that strange situation, there are some researchers who make research beyond the comprehension horizon (body of knowledge as you call it). Sometimes they are unable to explain the result of their experiments, but they can describe them in details. For example, Norbert Feist (a researcher from Germany) conducted an Acoustic Michelson-Morley experiment with the same so-called null result. That means complete inconsistency of relativity because the theory of Relativity requires such result only for optical experiments. That leads to the general law of signal propagation in any medium including space. That is a doomed idea for the modern science because the paradigm that incorporates such idea destroys physics for more than 100 years and all “their dissertations and achievements” become nullified, and the circle of development starts again from scratch.
Meanwhile, a new explanation of the entire situation with signals appeared from the other side of science. For example, my articles ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions’ and article ‘Philosophy, physics and mathematics of relative and absolute motion’ explain all set of experiments.
However, they use another paradigm that stays so far from “known paradigm” that they are unable to make anything in that paradigm.
You can try to test your mind against that paradigm just read my paper (accessible from my profile) ‘Human’s delusion of Time’ and tell me the result. If you can transform the basic categories in your mind, you can see how Paradigm Shift does work.
There is one more question for you here. Are you ready to the impact with Abyss?
Dear colleague
Exciting replies interesting, I agree with the answers and explanations above.
Regards
Dear Dr. Zare,
Thank you. I hope you understand that the question you quoted is meant to be funny or rhetoric (of course no disrespect intended). Based on my struggle and first hand experience spanning over a decade, I understand how paradigm shift works. Also your insightful observations and statements clearly showing that you also have very good understanding and first hand experience.
Every theory must under go sever testing. I have been testing my discoveries, ever since I accidentally stumbled on to the discovery 15 years ago. I also hired over dozen engineers (pioneer-soft.com) to make sure that it is possible to achieve real-CBSD. I can provide proof in half-a-dozen ways.
The biggest problem is no software researcher is willing to look at the proof, as if there is a unspoken rule (I am not informed of) that few researchers must be sacrificed for putting the discipline in the right path by exposing the error?
Dr. Zare, you are lucky because you are in the mature scientific discipline, where the rules for debate such as reasoning, evidence and counter evidence are well established and respected. This was not the case in the early 16th century. The first paradigm shift in any scientific discipline is most contentious: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology
But this kind of pain and struggles results in creating “scientific method” by the very philosophers who had first hand experience the suffering. Unfortunately, computer science not yet experienced its first paradigm shift and it is still hanging to “beliefs” formed 50 to 60 years ago, when computer science was in its infancy.
Please see my question, which contains: “past scientific achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice".
When a scientific field is in its infancy, there are no past scientific achievements supplying the foundation for its further practice. Almost every fact is assumption made by great thinks at the time. For example, great thinkers assumed “the Earth is static” more than 2000 years ago. Kindly read bottom half of page 6 and top half of 7 in my paper attached to top question for more details.
Dr. Zade, what do you mean by this: Are you ready to the impact with Abyss? Is it an idiom? I can’t find this by searching using Google.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends,
I feel, you need to see this in this context: In a battle between any two paradigms such as geocentric paradigm and heliocentric paradigm, the core “theoretical foundation” at the root of one of the paradigms would be a fact, while the core “theoretical foundation” at the root of competing paradigm would be a lie.
It is an illegal circular logic to defend the core belief (e.g. “the Earth is static”) by using concepts (e.g. epicycles or retrograde motions) derived by relying on the core belief. Today I am dealing with huge BoK that has been accumulated for past 50 years, which must be 20 to 30 times larger than the BoK (Body of Knowledge) existed in 16th century for the geocentric paradox.
In other words, the battle is between the core “theoretical foundation” at the very root of each of the paradigms. The battle is never between the derived concepts. The epicycles are reality, if “the Earth is static at the centre” is a fact. If it is a lie, everything derived by relying on such lie is corrupted and invalid.
My contention is that definitions (at the root of the software engineering paradox) for the nature of CBD and essential properties for components are fundamentally flawed. I can demonstrate 100s of examples to prove that this is the objective reality and fact for the CBD (Component Based Design): The purpose and true essence for the CBD (Component Based Design) is eliminating spaghetti code, since 90% of the features and functionality can be implemented in components (which can be disassembled/un-plugged or re-assembled/re-plugged-in), where each component is free from spaghetti code, because the component can be un-plugged for redesigning and testing individually (free from spaghetti code) for creating upgraded version for each successive releases throughout the evolutionary life of the product category.
In the 16th century, no one is agreed even to investigate the possibility that “the Earth may be moving”. Unfortunately, today no software researcher is even willing to investigate any evidence that contradict their beliefs formed 50 years ago: The CBD is building software by “assembling” reusable components (preferably from 3rd party components vendors) – My contention is that It is a lie. Even laymen know that it is a lie – Which newly invented product in the world is designed and built by assembling already exited reusable components?
Don’t tell me PC to run Microsoft’s Windows or Smartphone to run Google’s Android, where the products are standardized and companies differentiate their offerings by using software, design and applications. One must understand the reality and defences between various kinds of products: http://www.real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html
Please also see my previous question and clear proof I summarize in the answer 7 to the question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_civilized_way_for_exposing_a_geocentric_paradox_of_a_21st_century_scientific_discipline
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Puncochár,
Thank you. I agree, but I feel there must be a limit. What is the limit? I have been begging software researchers for past decade to discover the immutable objective reality about the nature and purpose of the CBD (Component Based Design) of one of kind new products and the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known large physical component. Discovering this reality and facts put research efforts in the right path (as the discovery “the Sun is at the centre” put the basic science on the right path in 17th century).
If the essential properties of the components are {R, S}, then it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components (having the essential properties {R, S}), which can achieve real-CBSD for effectively addresses the infamous software crisis by eliminating its root cause “spaghetti code”.
Is it possible to invent things like fiber optic networks, by being clueless about nature and properties of light? Is it possible to invent things like semiconductor-chips/ICs, by being clueless about the nature and properties of electrons? How is it possible to find treatments for infections, by being clueless about nature and properties of viruses or bacteria. No useful engineering invention can be made, if necessary knowledge is flawed.
How is it possible to invent real software components for achieving real CBD for software by being clueless about nature and properties of physical functional components? Many experts insist real CBSD is impossible without even knowing what it is (and refusing to even know what it is). Anyone can discover these facts (or objective reality) within a week or two at most.
If the essential properties of the components are {R, S}, then it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components (having the essential properties {R, S}), which can achieve real-CBSD for effectively addresses the infamous software crisis by eliminating its root cause “spaghetti code”. All the evidence is already openly available on the web. I can illustrate this using 100s of examples, if anyone has any doubts.
Software researchers already wasted more than 25 years on the, since technological advancements allowed it possible to invent real-software-components for achieving real CBSD in 1990. Isn’t it painful, when researchers refuse to spend few hours to discover the truth, while has been wasting their hard work for nearly 27 years in pursuit of 21st century alchemy by relying on a lie (as researchers wasted hundreds of years evolving geocentric by relying on a lie)?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Raju,
I have put my answer on your question "Is there a civilized way for exposing a geocentric paradox of a 21st century scientific discipline?"
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy