The widely accepted ethical obligation and code of conduct among the research communities is: It is unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept (in the theoretical foundation for or Body of Knowledge of any scientific discipline) by deliberately ignoring or hiding counter-evidence. It is a moral and ethical obligation for each and every researcher to address each of the demonstrable counter-evidences for any theory or concept he/she is defending or promoting.
The sacred duty of researchers of each of the scientific or technological disciplines is to investigate evidence for eliminating flawed pieces of knowledge such as theories or concepts form the BoK (Body of Knowledge), for example, if and when irrefutable counter-evidence is presented or demonstrated. Ignoring (even due to prejudice) or hiding (by being complacent) such demonstrable counter-evidence is also unethical abdication of the sacred duty.
Any accepted piece or part of knowledge (e.g. theory or concept in the BoK) could cause irreparable damage, if it is fundamentally flawed. For example, each new piece or part of knowledge would likely be corrupted, if it is added by relying on such fundamentally flawed pieces of knowledge. Such corruption spreads overtime, if the BoK is expanded by adding more and more new pieces or parts of knowledge (by relying on such flawed or corrupted pieces of knowledge), which eventually results in altered perception of reality (e.g. paradoxical paradigm). Also, it is a fool’s errand to rely on such flawed or corrupted BoK (by engineering researchers) for making any useful technological invention. It is the sacred duty and moral obligation of each and every researcher to prevent such insidious spread of corruption and dangerous consequences of such BoK having large chunks of corrupted knowledge.
I am sure every scientist in the world must agree that: The biggest and most well-documented mistake in the history of science is “relying on a flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) without properly testing and/or validating it”. The “scientific method” was formulated and formalized in the 17th century in the light of pain and suffering endured and insights gained from the first-hand experience of putting the research efforts onto the right path by exposing the error. The “scientific method” was formulated particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost: To prevent researchers form relying on flawed assumptions (e.g. rooted in prejudice, fantasy or myths), which are in contradiction to the objective reality.
Answer to this question is objective reality: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system? Relying on the wrong answer (the Earth is static at centre) to this question about 2000 years ago diverted mankind’s research efforts (e.g. for understanding the reality by finding rational explanation) into a wrong path. The research efforts persisted in the wrong path for nearly 1500 years without realizing the error. This resulted in the geocentric paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality.
Software researchers repeated the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same kind of mistake in the 21st century must be shocking. Even more shocking is that many software researchers reacting not much different from the ignorant fanatics in the dark ages, who actively supported killing of Giordano Bruno and life imprisonment of Galileo. This kind of mistake is not committed by any other discipline in past 400 years. The researchers of software are ignoring or hiding demonstrable counter-evidence that falsifies their theories or concepts.
The answers to these 2 questions are objective realities (1) what is the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/development) for physical products and (2) what is the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. Researches of computer science (software) repeated this kind of cardinal sin nearly 50 years ago by ignoring such objective realities. The myths and assumption at the root of the existing CBSD paradox are in clear contradiction to the objective reality (as the flawed belief/myth “the Earth is static” at the root of geocentric paradox was in clear contradiction to the reality).
The nature and properties of so called software components and CBSD (CBD for software) were blindly defined (based on fantasy, prejudice and wishful thinking) 50 years ago without any consideration to the objective reality. The research efforts have been persisting in the wrong path for 50 years without realizing the error. This resulted in existing CBSD paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality. A huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for 50 years comprising tens of thousands of published papers and thousands of books world over backed by epicycles of software as empirical evidence in support of the geocentric paradox of the software.
I have been doing research passionately (ever since I accidentally stumbled onto a fascinating new kind of software components 15 years ago), which lead to the discoveries of nature and reality such as true essence of CBD and essential properties of physical components. My patented inventions are rooted in such discovery of the reality and facts about the components and CBD.
I informed hundreds of respected researchers and leading scientists about the nature and true essence of real-CBD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design and provided demonstrable counter-evidence, which demonstrates that it is possible to invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBD for software (that exposes flawed myths at the root of existing paradox) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming
The above evidence clearly contradicts the concepts in published papers and books. Unfortunately, many respected researchers have been using so many unsubstantiated dishonest excuses to evade their ethical or moral obligation to address counter-evidence. Promoting any concepts or theories without addressing known counter-evidence is unethical and it is fraud to deliberately hiding such counter-evidence. Even after knowing the possible evidence that prove their concepts and theories are no more than epicycles of software engineering’s geocentric paradox, they continue to promote their concepts and theories by deliberately ignoring the clear counter-evidence.
Empirical falsification is proven scientific method for detecting flawed pieces of knowledge and for eliminating corrupted chunks of knowledge in the BoK. Deliberately ignoring or hiding demonstrable empirical counter-evidence is abdication of moral and ethical obligations. Software researchers committed or repeated a huge mistake. Exposing it leads to software engineering revolution. I can’t believe, researchers in the 21st century repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history. More shocking is they are reacting no differently from the fanatics in the dark ages. Even after knowing counter evidence, many choose to ignore the evidence to promote the geocentric paradox of software. Initially I thought they were complacent and/or prejudice. But after so many attempts spanning many years, I am beginning to think that they have abdicated their sacred and ethical duty.
How any flawed piece of knowledge could ever be falsified, if the researchers deliberately ignore or hide empirical counter-evidence that can clearly falsify the piece of knowledge? Isn’t it unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept by ignoring or hiding counter-evidence? This kind of behavior must not be tolerated by honest and genuine researchers in the interest of scientific and technological progress. Such behavior causes irreparable damage to BoK, by injecting and promoting corruption.
Raju S Chiluvuri