How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved problems?

Dear Friends,

Researchers of computer science have been refusing to use scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for solving outstanding problems. For example, the infamous software crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components.

The reason for the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models of next generation jet-fighters.

The essential properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods), it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable proof backed by evidence.

This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved problems of software. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).

The scientific methods can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits on an integrated circuits today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) and compare that to number of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.

Even a honey-bee can manoeuvre many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand, scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such knowledge.

The research effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing real software components.

I have made such simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is openly provided in my web-site http://real-software-components.com and in my ResearchGate account. We (i.e. http://pioneer-soft.com) built first and only GUI-platform in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved problems.

I don’t have the resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific methods).

To invent solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI, which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions. Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?

Many software researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such inventions): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics

Please kindly remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering BoK) can withstand even the most rigorous validation and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation. But how such truth/reality can prevail if every respected researcher tries to cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by refusing to see the evidence)?

How can we emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? Mathematics is incapable of providing such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only by using scientific methods. Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could anyone draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how it works or looks like?

Summary: It is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved software problems without acquiring missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software researchers refusing to any use other methods (except mathematics) for acquiring knowledge to expand the theoretical foundation in order to facilitate software inventions for solving unsolved problems. Refusing to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge is shocking and scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved problems?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Isn't it a fraud, if researchers of a scientific or engineering discipline refuse to use any mechanism to validate or correct theories or hypothesis?

Dear Friends,

            The scientific method evolved for centuries and comprises of comprehensive mechanisms for testing, validation or correction of any theory or assumption (or hypothesis). The researchers of sciences use scientific method for acquiring knowledge, which is elaborately explained in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

           

            The scientific method comprises of powerful mechanisms for validation and correction such as falsifiability:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. Such mechanisms for correction or validation are extremely valuable for gaining deeper and deeper insights and wisdom about the ultimate objective reality.

            Relentless efforts to advance each of the (scientific or engineering) disciplines, competition between researchers, and having mechanisms for validation, whose test every theory must withstand or fail. This would expose accepted theories or published conclusions that are result of sloppiness, bad luck and even fraud; and swept away by the advances of the field. In fact, we can gain more wisdom and deeper insights from exposing such flawed theories.

            The researchers of mathematics have comprehensive mechanisms for testing, validation or correction of any theory or assumption (or hypothesis). For example, researchers of mathematics (or logic) rely on set of axioms to build axiomatic systems. If there is an error in any of the axioms, the research results lead to contradictions or inconsistencies. The axioms are corrected or replaced to eliminate contradictions or inconsistencies. Even of the contradictions may not detect the flawed axiom, the contradictions are a clear indication of a flaw in one or more of the axioms (or theories or hypothesis).

            Mathematical methods (or logic) have in-built mechanisms for detecting flawed axiomatic assumptions, theories or hypothesis. For example, if an axiom is flawed, applying series of steps (that are strictly in complacence with established mathematical methods) by relying on such flawed axiom sooner or later leads to glaring contradiction or unacceptable inconsistence (e.g. such as 0 = 1). The flawed axiom can be detected by retracing the steps (by making sure each step is correct and strictly in complacence with established mathematical methods), which certainly leads to the source of the contradiction or inconsistence. This knowledge and insights are used to make necessary corrections or discord the flawed axiom.

            Computer science can never be a real science and software engineering can never be a real engineering, without mechanisms for correction or validation. How do we know the validity of each of the accepted theories or published conclusions (e.g. definitions for components, CBD or neural networks) in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for computers science and/or software engineering?

            Unfortunately, researchers of computer science (software) made no effort to device such corrective mechanisms, even in cases where such corrective mechanisms are readily available. My years of effort to propose objective facts and mechanisms for correction or validation have been not only ignored but also I have been snubbed and insulted.

            Isn't fraud, if mechanisms for correction or validation are ignored even when such mechanisms for correction or validation are available (or proposed)? For example, no error (e.g. in axiom, theory or hypothesis) can ever be detected, if there are no mechanisms for correction or validation. If any discipline that is not using (by choice/ignorance or it is impossible to use) scientific methods, it is a Pseudoscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

            Many soft sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) try to use scientific methods, even if it is not possible to strictly conform to the scientific rigor. It may be impossible to strictly follow methods for validation in certain disciplines. Isn't it fraud, if researchers refuse to use any methods for validation, even such methods are available (e.g. proposed) and possible to gain valuable knowledge for substantial advancement of the discipline (or field)?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Who should be held responsible for any scientific crisis in 21st century & resulting waste of efforts of thousands of researchers or scientists?

Progress of any scientific discipline side tracks into a wrong path and end up is a scientific or technological crisis, if there are errors in seed axioms of the scientific discipline (or a branch of a scientific discipline) and researchers try to advance the scientific discipline relying on the untested axiom by assuming that the untested axiom is self-evident Truth.

            For example, erroneous axiom “the Earth is static” side tracked scientific progress into a wrong path for 1000 years and resulted in one of the greatest scientific crisis known to mankind. It resulted in deeply entrenched geocentric paradigm and conventional wisdom. Countless researchers and philosophers wasted their life time efforts on advancing geocentric paradigm.

The assumption “the Earth is static” was made more than 2000 years ago. Many great ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Ptolemy believed that the Earth is static. They started observing the heavens to understand the paths of planetary motions and try to understand the nature and reasons that affecting the movement of planets and stars. They realized that the movement of planets and starts was not random, but definitely an inexplicable pattern (e.g. comprising of retrograde motions and epicycles, see FIG-1 in http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html)

This assumption (i.e. the Earth is static) neither tested nor documented, so no one even aware that it was untested assumption. So researchers between 500AD and 1500AD have no idea they were wasting their efforts by going in the wrong direction and not aware that they have no chance of making any meaningful progress. How can we prevent repeat of this kind of huge waste in the 21^st century (and even greater lost opportunity costs)?

Many of the researchers or scientists certainly could make substantial contribution to the advancement of scientific and technological advancement, if the scientific progress were not sidetracked into wrong path. Instead they end up wasting their hard work and life time effort in a wrong path having no possibility of making any meaning full contribution, due to the undocumented error committed by earlier generations.

Who should be held responsible for such huge waste of research effort? Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Ptolemy for not documenting their assumption “the Earth is static” is not yet proven? The researchers between 500AD and 1500AD, who were trying to advance mankind’s knowledge by relying on earlier works, without questioning and ascertaining the validity of the earlier works?

Since these researchers wasted their effort and lost their valuable time, so I feel and they are also victims, so must not be held responsible. I believe, any researcher making a genuine mistake must not be blamed. If the mistakes made were genuine (e.g. unavoidable due the best known knowledge available at that time), so it is unfair to blame any one.

But if similar error were to repeat in 21^st century, I am sure certain researchers must be held responsible for wasting valuable research efforts of researchers and blocking scientific and technological progress. How any researcher would feel, if he wastes his valuable time in the wrong path (due to the negligence of earlier generations). They could have made major contributions, if the research is moving in the right path? Newton and other made significant contributions to Heliocentric model, since the error was fixed paving the way in the right direction. But Newton and others were to born 100 years earlier, what kind of contribution he or others could make to geocentric model?

Isn’t it a pity, if a great scientist or researcher end up wasting his effort in wrong path, who could have made great contribution when invested in the right path? Imagine, if a major scientific discipline sidetracked due to such error and ended up in a crisis and stuck in wrong path for 3 to 4 decades. How many great scientist or researcher could not contribute to technological progress due to the error (otherwise could have made huge contributions).

I believe, no one should be blamed, if his/her mistake was genuine and unintentional. For example, philosophers thousand years ago when they were students indoctrinated into the altered reality (e.g. see FIG-1 in http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html).

This kind of mistake must not be repeated in the21st century. This kind of mistake can’t repeat, if proven scientific processes and rules are followed. Any mistake can be acceptable, if it is genuine or done without knowing (and while not being negligent). However certain researchers must be held responsible, if the error was made or sustained due to their negligence. How do we define negligence? How can we determine, who are negligent?

Isn’t it negligent, if a scientist and researcher knowingly violates or continue to violate proven scientific processes and rules, even after being made aware of untested axioms at the root? Today in 21^st century, can a scientist in a position of influence plead ignorance to basic scientific processes and rules? Can he justify violating proven scientific processes and rules by using baseless or unsubstantiated excuses (e.g. using invalid or unproven chain of reasons)? I feel, the researchers and scientists must accept responsibility, if they ignore clear warnings and information (e.g. proof of violation of scientific process or rules) due to their prejudice or by giving unsubstantiated excuses.

I feel, it is sacred duty of any researcher and scientist to investigate Truth and strictly fallow proven scientific process/rules. Can we accept that it is a genuine mistake, if they ignore or evade their sacred responsibility to investigate truth, when clear and convincing evidence is openly presented to them? Is it acceptable, if they justify violations of basic scientific processes/rules by giving excuses (e.g. a chine of invalid or unproven reasons)?

Mustn’t they share the blame, if they continue promote prevailing possible flawed paradigm by ignoring the information and evidence bring to their notice? Can they refuse to prove the validity of untested axioms at the root of the prevailing possible flawed paradigm? Can they refuse to investigate the evidence provided to expose flawed axioms at the root of prevailing flawed paradigm?

If that is the case, don’t they have obligation to also disclose the information and evidence bring to their notice, when they are teaching the prevailing paradigm to next generation of students or researchers (e.g. future Newtons), who might end up wasting their future research effort? Shouldn’t they provide the information to the students and future researchers, so that, each of the student can make educated choice, which way he/her wish to do research?

I feel, we must do everything to prevent the same mistake in the 1^st century. It was a genuine mistake thousand years ago. But can similar error be a genuine mistake in the 21^st century? One way to prevent repeating similar mistake (and associated huge waste and lost opportunity costs) is to assign blame to researchers, whose mistakes are not genuine (but negligence).

My objective is to prevent repeat of similar mistake and waste in the 21^st century. Hence what kinds of mistakes are no longer genuine in the 21^st century based on the valuable lessons mankind learned during past 2000 years? Who should be held responsible for similar scientific crisis in 21^st century and resultant sustained waste of the efforts of thousands of researchers and scientists (and lost opportunity costs)? I am sure, no one wants future Newton’s waste their life time effort for advancing Geocentric paradigm.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri