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
