Dear Friends,
The
existing CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is rooted in beliefs, which
I can prove are flawed. Software researchers violated basic scientific rules
and principles 50 years ago by relying on untested beliefs, this resulted in
software crisis. I can’t find even a single real scientist who understands
basic scientific principles and relying on untested beliefs is gross violation of
the scientific principles.
In the history of science, I
could find only one other example, where a scientific discipline relied on a
belief (i.e. the earth is static) and evolved into a complex geocentric
paradoxical paradigm, which altered perception of reality and ended up in very
costly scientific crisis. Can anyone name any example other than existing CBSD
paradigm, which is rooted in beliefs?
Can anyone of you name
any other untested and unproven belief in any other scientific discipline,
except the untested & unproven belief (i.e. the Earth is static) that
eventually resulted in complex geocentric paradox (an altered perception of
reality). No other research community of any real scientific discipline ever
relied or accepted relying on untested and unproven belief for advancing any
other scientific discipline.
It is beyond my
comprehension, why none of the software researcher feels such gross violation
(i.e. relying on an unproven belief) is a problem. Why it is hard to understand
this simple fact/rule: Relying on
flawed belief/fact diverts research efforts into a wrong path? In history of science, it is impossible to
find any exception to this basic scientific rule. If brute force (i.e. research
effort) is employed to advance the discipline, it ends up in crisis (since
nothing useful could possibly exist in such a wrong path).
Any research
effort to advance a scientific or engineering discipline diverts into a wrong
path (that certainly leads to a crisis), as
soon as it started relying on flawed belief/fact. There is no exception to this
rule. How anyone possibly assume blindly that computer science (or
software engineering) could be an exception to such a basic rule or principle?
After software engineering ended up in crisis, many experts (e.g. Dr. Brook’s
“No Silver Bullet”) try to rationalize that it is the nature of software engineering
by using meticulous observations of retrograde motions and elaborate mapping of
epicycles, which are only deceptions of fundamentally altered perception of
reality.
Anyone
can prove me wrong by showing even a single exception to this rule: It
is a nature of any real science to end up in a wrong path, if researchers rely
on beliefs, if the beliefs are flawed. It is inevitable that the scientific
discipline ends up in crisis, if researches blindly employ brute force to
advance the discipline. For example,
if anyone foolishly believes that he can fly and jumps-off 900 feet tall cliff
or building, can he avoid the bad consequences of his foolish belief (i.e. if
he can’t fly)?
Relying
on untested beliefs is a gross violation of scientific rules and principles. It is
impossible to avoid consequences (when any scientific discipline makes such
huge foolish mistake). Hence software have been suffering the consequences for
at least 3 decades (at a cost of trillions of dollars). There is no other way
to overcome the crisis (to prevent wasting trillions more), except exposing the
flawed beliefs that diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The existing
CBSD paradigm (an altered perception of reality) is the result of tens of
thousands of software researchers investing their research efforts for decades
without realizing that they are pushing it in a wrong path.
Prove me wrong by showing an exception to
this very basic scientific rule in the history of science: “Relying on
flawed a belief” is not only a blunder but also a violation of basic scientific
principle. Please don’t give me examples of beliefs, that later turned out to
be right (e.g. by luck). I am only talking about the beliefs that are flawed.
In case of CBSD, I can prove
that the beliefs are flawed, if any researcher is willing to see the evidence.
If he can’t understand this simple logic, is he a real scientist? No one can
deny simple scientific rules or principles. I don’t know how to prove obvious
facts. Let me quote Galileo (last person struggled to expose such flawed
belief): "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any
paradox.". I couldn’t find any other examples of such flawed beliefs (at
the root of any scientific discipline) to learn from other’s experiences, which
could be helpful in my struggle to expose the flawed beliefs.
The
research community used excuses such as: If the Earth is moving, why the Moon
is not left behind (or how could Moon follow)? They refuse to see the evidence
(e.g. Galileo’s Moons), when Galileo offered to show proof using advanced
telescope invented by Galileo. The best way to expose this kind of flawed
beliefs is investigating physical evidence. I can show equivalent physical
evidence: many real software components & CBD applications built by
assembling the real software components.
Almost
every software scientist or researcher readily admit that existing CBSD is
rooted in unproven beliefs, but they continue to deny any violation of fundamental
scientific principles. They pretend to be scientists. How could they be real scientists
without even knowing that it is an error to violate basic scientific principles?
This kind of thing never happened in the history of mankind, not even in the
dark ages.
It may be understandable, if someone
makes a mistake in a multiplication (e.g. 17 * 29 = 487). How could anyone continue
to deny the mistake, even after the error is clearly pointed out? How could anyone
insist that it is not a wrong answer, while claiming to be an expert in mathematics?
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
No comments:
Post a Comment