Dear Friends,
If and when counter-evidence brought to his/her notice for any concepts or theories he has been promoting or supporting, isn’t it a moral and ethical obligation of any researcher to address the counter-evidence? Obviously, it is unethical and dishonest to ignore or hide such counter-evidence for any personal gains. Any scientific or engineering discipline is no different from mythology or a cult, if large number of researchers and scientists deliberately ignore or hide such counter-evidence. What is the difference between a scientist and a cult member?
But what would you do, if openly supporting or acknowledging Truth (i.e. counter-evidence) could ruin your reputation? For example, about 450 years ago, even if a researcher were to realize that “the Earth is not static (at the center)” by investigating the counter-evidence, openly supporting the Truth must have destroyed his/her reputation or even faced criminal persecution and punishment. Isn’t it moral obligation of every researcher to fight against such cult culture?
Please keep in the mind that geocentric paradox had been evolved for over 1500 years (due to relying on a 2000 year old flawed belief “the Earth is static”) and was deeply entrenched conventional wisdom 450 years ago, so saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Assume a critical sub-discipline of your scientific or engineering discipline ended up as the geocentric paradox of your scientific or engineering discipline (e.g. by relying on similar flawed belief).
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” .. Arthur Schopenhauer.
“all great truths begin as blasphemies” … George Bernard Shaw
What would you do, if counter-evidence (for concepts or theories you support and rely or use in your work) is brought to your notice? It could ruin your reputation or career (e.g. your promotion might be at risk), If you investigate the counter-evidence and choose to openly support (or acknowledge) the counter-evidence (e.g. recommend others to address the counter-evidence)?
Would you ignore or hide a counter-evidence to protect your career or reputation, because deliberately ignoring or hiding the counter-evidence that can expose root causes of the geocentric paradox of your discipline is unethical?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Yes, as a scientist, you should support the truth, i.e. whichever hypothesis the data supports. In reality, this is a lofty ideal which only some scientists can live up to. Scientists are humans and prone to the same behavioral weaknesses as other human beings: ego, selfishness, self-promotion,politicking, etc. sometimes play a part in the career of a scientist, although they do not have a place in science!
Dear Dr. Vikas,
Thank you. I have been struggling for many years to expose deeply entrenched flawed CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) paradox by providing comprehensive counter-evidence. For example: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_any_flawed_theory_or_concept_can_ever_be_exposed_if_clear_counter-evidence_is_deliberately_ignored_and_or_hidden
Few researchers or experts implied that they can’t risk their careers and reputation by expressing or supporting views that contradict deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. I don’t know how to expose the error.
I have been doing research and accumulated huge body of knowledge to expose the 50 year’s old flawed myths at the root of the existing CBSD paradox. I provided counter-evidence for hundreds of software researchers. But every one ignored (e.g. pretend that they never heard) clear counter-evidence. I can’t believe that this kind of thing could happen even in the 21st century: 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
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Raju,
After publishing this book philosphical book
https://moly.hu/konyvek/horvath-laszlo-attila-az-eszme
I lost my job only in three month (Reflecting well real grade of democracy in Europe)… You can ask about it MOL RT.. And never had opportunity to work in my profession.
I have outsider interpretation of physics and geology there is also same troubles like in computer science (even I do not have experience here)
Best Regards,
Laszlo
Dear Dr. Laszlo,
I am sorry for what happened. Would to have published the book, if you were to know the consequences? I hope the righteous cause is worth the risk. Fortunately I don’t work for anyone, so no one can fire me. But I constantly face personal attacks and snubbing.
For example, I went to IIT, New Delhi (one of the prestigious universities) couple of years ago in India to present real-software-components. The professors started ambushing me just after 5 minutes into the presentation by saying lies and fabricated facts. Any thing I say, they started twisting to humiliate or insult me. I was so furious that I wanted to drag them to court for their incompetence.
I talked to a lawyer, but lawyer asked, if I have any proof (e.g. a recording)? Without such proof, they would deny everything in the court. I never met such an incompetent and arrogant people in my life. What a bunch of jerks. I have many such experiences during past several years of my struggles, but not as bad as this in the IIT.
Also many people (former colleagues and few friends) have been avoiding me or even stop talking to me. I never asked many of them for any help or favor, but they feel offended by the Truths or counter-instances for the existing flawed “consensus”.
Please look at my response at 7th place to your answer at 6th location at this thread: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_civilized_way_for_exposing_a_geocentric_paradox_of_a_21st_century_scientific_discipline.
It is possible to find many large disjoint sets of self-contained features and functionality, where each disjoint set can be implemented as real-software-components. I can demonstrate thousands of examples. Today no single large disjoint set of self-contained features and functionality is implemented as real-software-components by insisting that it is impossible to implement real-software-components. Could you see the difference between the flawed myths and facts? No proof in the world can be black and white like this.
I never expected this kind of resistance to simple facts that are diagonally opposite to the lies at the CBSD paradox. Even if I were to know the consequences, I would probable start this kind of struggle, because solving software crisis is so many times bigger than my ego, self-respect or career. I am determined to expose the flawed “consensuses” at any cost, even if I end up being a sacrificial lamb. I feel, the cause is worth the risk.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy