What kind of scientists deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules?

Is it acceptable, if judges blindly argue and/or advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating basic constitutional principles or breaking basic laws of the land? If any judge does it, isn’t it a clear abdication of his/her sacred duty of doing justice to innocent victims?

Why is it any different, if scientists blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? The very purpose and true essence of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth, for example, by discovering new scientific facts for expanding boundaries of mankind’s knowledge for getting closer and closer to absolute truth.

Where can I find real scientists, who are not going to blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? I have been searching for real scientists in the fields of computer science and software engineering for over 5 years and not able to find even single real scientist.

Isn’t it clear violation of scientific process to blindly define the nature (e.g. essential properties) of physical functional components and the nature (e.g. essential aspects or true essence) of the ideal CBD of physical products, without any basis in reality or fact (but based on wishful thinking or in pursuit of a fictional fantasy)?

Isn’t clear violation of scientific rules to rely on such definitions (made out of thin air without any basis in reality or fact) for advancing scientific and/or technological knowledge by concluding and blindly defending that the definitions are self-evident truths, where such inalienable self-evident truths (i.e. definitions for software components and CBSE) requires no validation or proof?

Scientific research often relies on two kinds of enquiry (1) enquiry of fact of nature (e.g. irrefutable facts/results obtained by either observation of reality/nature or from reliably repeatable experiments) and (2) enquiry of effects or phenomena of nature, for example by using rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations (e.g. to quantify or measure the empirical results or facts).

Some irrefutable discovery of facts include, (1) the Sun is at the center of our planetary system and planets are circling around the Sun (2) there exists attraction (i.e. gravitational force) between any two bodies having measurable mass, and (3) the force of attraction increases if the masses of the bodies are increased and force of attraction decreases if the distance between the bodies is increased.

These are few examples for absolute scientific Truths proven beyond any doubt. Please notice that these absolute scientific Truths not try to quantify the orbits of planets (as Kepler did it) of force of attraction with respect to masses or distance (as Newton did it). The first step of scientific discovery includes answering broader questions, such as which planet is at the center, is there exists force of attraction between any two bodies having mass? If the answer is Yes, what kind of effect the masses and distance have on the force of attraction?

The second step is to understand and explain the phenomena of nature: Scientist need to quantify orbits of planets or measure the planetary paths by applying rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations. That is want the discoveries and inventions of Kepler and Newton did.

Now let’s come to computer science: Does the physical functional components uniquely and universally share any nature (e.g. a set of essential properties)? If answer is Yes, is it possible to discover the set of essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by every physical functional component? If answer is Yes, is it possible to invent real software components that are equivalent to the physical functional component by having the set of essential properties?

Unfortunately software researchers blindly concluded 50 years ago and have been insisting that the answers are - No, without ever even attempting to make any investigation of facts. It is impossible to find that anyone else ever even tried to investigate such basic facts in the past 50 years.

Instead researchers 50 years ago decided to define nature (i.e. essential properties) to suite their wishful thinking or fantasy such as building large software applications by assembling reusable standardized COTS (Commercial Of the Shelf) components as hardware engineers build computers. To suite (or in pursuit of) this fantasy, they defined that reusable and/or standardized software parts are software components.

Likewise, since 1970 many kinds of software components were invented, where each kind of software components by definition is a kind of software parts having a given set of properties or conforming to a so called component model, without any basis in reality or facts but in pursuit of a fictional fantasy or wishful thinking. Any scientific discipline or engineering paradigm evolved or in pursuit of such fictional fantasy by relying on such baseless myths is nothing more than mythology. Isn’t it a classic definition for fake or pseudo science?

Whenever I try to point out numerous violations of basic scientific principles, proven processes, established rules and resultant epicycles and contradictions, each of the respected software scientists insist that software is unique or different and computer science is not real science. In my view, computer science can become real science. The problem is that the software scientists are fake or pseudo scientists, who may be brilliant but foolishly refusing to learn and practice basic scientific processes, processes and rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions 

I believe, so called self styled scientists who practice such fake science are fake scientists. Forgive me, if it is offensive to call such software scientists fake scientists, if they deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules.

They refuse to engage in productive scientific debate or inspect physical evidence (i.e. real-software-components and real CBSD) but instead resort to insults and personal attacks. Is this really what happens in real basic sciences? The real sciences whet through that phase 400 years ago. In 21st century, such discovery of an error in seed axioms at the root of any basic sciences is shocking to real scientists, which certainly leads to scramble for answers why such error (i.e. untested unproven axiom) slipped without detection. Isn’t he a fake scientist, if it is not shocking or if he tries to justify the error by using baseless excuses such as the scientific discipline is unique or different (so not real science)?

It is the time to call a spade a spade. If a science is fake science, it must be called a fake science. Any scientist, who defends, encourages or teaches such fake science is a fake scientist. The corrupted system must be completely rebuilt by discovering absolute truths. In the modern 21st century there is room for intermediate steps (an another less flawed system) such as Tychonic model (that is proposed as a compromise between geocentric model and heliocentric model).

Some of the basic truths include, there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential properties) that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components. It is possible to discover the essential properties. It is possible to invent real software components that share the essential properties and hence are equivalent to the physical functional components.

Likewise there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential aspects) that is uniquely and universally shared by CBD of each and every known physical product. It is possible to discover the essential aspects. It is possible for the real software components to achieve the real CBD for software that shares the essential aspects and hence is equivalent to the physical functional components.

I can provide irrefutable proof for these basic truths. This is the first step of discovery process, so it is not necessary to quantify these basic truths in the first step of discovery. Quantifying the accurate definitions is second step. I have tried to quantify the accurate descriptions, which may not be absolute truths but, I believe, close enough to the absolute truths. There is always room for improvements.

For example, Kepler’s laws to quantify the planetary orbits or Newton’s laws of to quantify universal gravity are not absolute truths but close enough for most of the practical purposes. For example, Newton’s laws of universal gravity explained the minor anomalies in the Kepler’s laws and Einstein’s theory of general relativity exposed minor anomalies in the Newton’s laws of universal gravity. Of course, researchers across the world are relentlessly working to expand the human knowledge closer and close to absolute Truth (i.e. in pursuit of the absolute Truth).

None of this would have possible without exposing the error at the root of geocentric model. Exposing the error allowed scientific progress we are enjoying now by putting the derailed scientific progress on the right tracks.  Likewise, no meaningful scientific progress is possible in computer science without putting the progress on right tracks by following proven scientific process and established scientific rules without denying basic scientific principles. We must expose fake scientists to attract real scientists or encourage real scientific research for transforming computer science form a fake science to a real science.

Real scientific research requires open honest exchange of ideas and documentation of irrefutable facts by real scientists who know basic scientific principles and who are honestly willing to follow the basic scientific principles (e.g. processes and rules). Today there exists inhospitable environment that is hostile to open honest discussion and to the very survival of real scientists. Fake scientists are ignorant of basic scientific principles and defending the existing flawed paradox by refusing to follow (or hostile to) basic scientific processes or rules.

My polite hypocrisy not worked for past 5 years, which is forcing me to consider brutal honesty.  How long one should beat around the bush (e.g. by using polite hypocrisy or humble persuasion to not hurt egos)? Eventually one would be left with no other option except calling a spade (fake scientists) a spade (i.e. fake scientist), if fake scientists burry their heads in the sand and refuse to see facts and reasoning.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

CEO, Pioneer-soft.com