What is this thing called Science? What is real

2 downloads 0 Views 88KB Size Report
In real science any thing (e.g. axiom or postulation) that is not proven is an ... even it is perceived as an absolute inalienable Truth and no one ever dared to.
What is this thing called Science? What is real science any way? In real science any thing (e.g. axiom or postulation) that is not proven is an assumption, where a proof requires irrefutable rational scientific explanation backed by repeatable and measurable empirical evidence. It is not wrong to rely on an axiom or postulation in any research effort for advancing mankind’s knowledge (e.g. to make new discoveries or useful inventions), but is wrong to not documenting such axiom or postulation before relying on them.

Any axiom or postulation must be clearly documented before relying on it, even it is perceived as an absolute inalienable Truth and no one ever dared to question its validity at the time it was made. We know what happened, when mankind concluded that the Earth is static at the center (without finding rational scientific explanation backed by repeatable and measurable empirical evidence). A vast and complex paradoxical paradigm (i.e. an altered reality) evolved by relying on this undocumented postulation for over thousand years.

Even a postulation perceived to be an inalienable Truth and considered impossible to find flaw at that time it was made, it is wrong to assume no one can find a flaw in a million years. No one can make such assumption and I am sure any reasonable person would agree that it wrong to make such assumption. Therefore any postulation and axiom must be documented before relying on it, if the axiom or postulation has no rational scientific explanation backed by repeatable and measurable empirical evidence. Up to 500 years ago, saying that the Sun may be at the center insulter common sense and then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. It contradicted almost every core concept and knowledge of then perceived reality. Even in the 21st century, in scientific disciplines emerging for past 40 to 60 years, there could exist such perceived altered reality due to undocumented axioms or postulations at the root. Questioning validity of such axioms or

Raju Chiluvuri

1

real-software-components.com

postulations would offend common sense (e.g. perceived to be arrogant and disrespectful) as these scientific paradoxical paradigms evolve and deeply entrenched in to collective wisdom. But no one can provide a sound rational reasoning backed by empirical evidence to show they are scientific facts.

For example, computer science and software engineering have such undocumented axioms or postulations at the root and have been evolving for decades by relying on them. Today it is perceived to be arrogant or disrespectful to either request experts to name them or question their validity, and most likely will be met with insults or snubbing with disdain.

Why software products need different kind of components and different kind of CBD (component Based Design), for example compared to the physical functional components and CBD for one of a kind physical products (e.g. an experimental spaceship or prototype of a next generation jet-fighter)?

When one asks this question, he gets many condescending replies for his ignorance such as, software is different or unique. They assert that it is impossible to invent software component equivalent to the physical functional components. If one try to probe further by asking, why it is not possible to invent real software components equivalent to physical functional components, for example, by discovering the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component for inventing realsoftware component having the essential properties?

If he is lucky enough to be insulted or snubbed for not accepting his ignorance and continue to ask questions, he would get replies such as it is impossible to discover such essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. Even it is possible to discover such essential properties, they assert that it is impossible to invent software component sharing the essential properties. These are all no more than

Raju Chiluvuri

2

real-software-components.com

assumption and no proof exists to show that they are proven facts (i.e. proven scientific Truths).

Such assumption may be true 50 years back, but are they still valid today? Even if they were valid today, can they guarantee that they will be valid 100, 1000 or million year from now? Such assumption (i.e. axioms or postulations) must be documented for future generations to validate (e.g. by finding rational reasoning backed by empirical evidence) or invalidate, for example, by finding rational scientific explanation backed by empirical evidence for such real software component that are achieving real CBSD (CBD for software products), where the real CBSD is equivalent to the CBD of the physical products (by sharing essential aspect uniquely and universally shared by each and every CBD of physical products).

If those assumptions (i.e. axioms or postulations) were documented, I am sure each of those assumptions would have been invalidated decades ago. If they put sincere effort, I am sure thousands of experts could invalidate any set of those interdependent assumptions (i.e. axioms or postulations) of existing paradoxical paradigm, which resulted in a perception of altered reality that is in clear conflict with our perception of reality about the CBD of physical products.

Unfortunately, any researcher even try to question validity of such axioms or postulation at the root of existing software engineering faces insults and snubbing, as if he is ignorant about the basic facts of nature and widely accepted inalienable biblical truths. This kind of attitude can be avoided, if such assumptions were documented, until they are validated. For example, scientific community today doesn’t take any one seriously, if he says that “the Earth is static at the center”. Likewise, 500 ago scientific community didn’t take any one seriously, when any one said that “the Sun is at the center”. Please see the chronology

of

events

to

expose

the

error:

http://real-software-

components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

Raju Chiluvuri

3

real-software-components.com

Then, what is real science? Galileo the great answered this question centuries ago, but no one what does it really mean. He said:

Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.

The purpose of science is to discover objective facts and measuring the degree of objective facts. For example, purpose of epistemology is to understand or explore our knowledge for example by finding methods for measuring our knowledge. For example, Newton’s Universal gravity is extremely accurate but not absolute Truth. Most scientists agree that, Einstein’s discovery of “Theory of General Relativity” advanced our knowledge further closer to the truth, but most believe it is not absolute Truth as well. Another example is: Even today Kepler’s laws are insanely close to absolute Truth, but have anomalies, before and after a smaller planet crossing a bigger planet. These anomalies are good, because they helped mankind discover Pluto (by analyzing perturbations in the orbit of Uranus) and prove existence of universal gravity beyond any reasonable doubt.

Allow me to translate or restate Galileo’s quote: Measure what is Objective and make measurable what is subjective (i.e. that is not objective).

Let me restate the purpose of scientific research. Try to measure the accuracy of things that can be measured (i.e. objective concepts) and try to make things measurable, if they are not measurable such as subjective concepts or assumptions (e.g. axioms or postulations).

Many modern disciplines (e.g. political science, economic science or human psychology or instincts) are called sciences, but they are not real sciences because filled with subjective concepts and subjective axioms or postulations. But they can called sciences, if the purpose was to invent methods to measure the accuracy of concepts and to discover ways to transform

Raju Chiluvuri

4

real-software-components.com

subjective concepts into objective concepts, whose accuracy can be measured an/or predicted with high degree of probability.

Although they are not real sciences today, there is nothing wrong to try to make them real sciences by applying (or following) proven scientific methods (o processes). May be we can’t read human thoughts/mind or predict instincts today. But we can’t guarantee that it is impossible hundred, thousand or million years form now. Likewise many things, we know for fact are subjective today might be made more objective in the future. If every one insists that it is crazy to try, no one would even dare to try. If one dares to try, he would be snubbed or ostracized until he gives up.

For example, every one today thinks it is crazy or even blasphemy to question validity of definitions for so called software components and definitions for so called CBSE/CBSD (so no one even dares to question their validity). If the assumptions (e.g. axioms or postulations) that led to such fundamentally flawed definitions for so called software components and so called CBSE were documented, software must not have ended up in this mess (popularly know as software crisis). Unfortunately today many experts insist this mess is the very nature of software, so there is no software crisis to solve or overcome.

Today computer science is not a real science and software engineering is not a real engineering, because each of these two fields is filled with countless subjective concepts (e.g. derived by relying on flawed undocumented axioms) and no serious effort is made to transform the subjective concepts into measurable objective concepts. But I am sure, it is not hard to transform software engineering into real engineering, no different from mechanical, aeronautical or computer engineering (e.g. once essential aspects of real CBD is discovered and essential properties of functional components that are capable of real CBD). Likewise, I am sure computer science can be transform into real science, no different from mature and real sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology.

Raju Chiluvuri

5

real-software-components.com

Please keep in mind, the seeds for a scientific crisis and paradoxical paradigm (i.e. altered perception of reality) might be sowed (or planted) when axioms and postulations are not documented. A flawed axiom or postulation side tracks scientific or technological progress into wrong path (having a deadened) and inevitably ends up in a crisis. The scientific progress can’t be put on right tracks until the erroneous axioms were exposed by replacing with more accurate scientific discoveries supported by rational scientific explanation backed by irrefutable empirical evidence.

We at pioneer-soft want to provide irrefutable empirical evidence for realsoftware components that are capable of achieving real CBD for software. Hence we created the first GUI library and necessary tools/processes that are capable of achieving real CBSD. We will be realizing our first version along with copyright protected source code within 2 to 4 weeks for public inspection. Any one can examine the source code to understand implementation and use our GUI library to build real-software-components and assemble them to build component hierarchies. Today no other GUI library is capable of implementing real-softwarecomponents (that are also referred to as replaceable components).

Our Java GUI library (for building complex 2D/3D graphics intensive runtime and/or real-time data driven web application) is the most simple, so it requires little or no training even for junior java programmers. For example, using each of the reusable GUI class is not much different from any other reusable Java class such as StringBuffer or hash-map etc. We will be adding more and more reusable GUI classes for presenting more and more kinds of GUI components in the coming weeks or months. However, it is not hard for any experienced Java/Web programmers to create a reusable GUI class for any kind of GUI component. So we are hoping to build a community of developers to build and contribute reusable GUI classes for more & more kinds of GUI components.

Raju Chiluvuri

6

real-software-components.com

I believe this kind of undocumented assumption (i.e. axiom or postulation) was at the root of any scientific crisis in the past. I believe, this kind of undocumented assumption (i.e. axiom or postulation) not only is at the root of any existing scientific crisis and will be at the root of any scientific crisis in the future as well. If such assumptions are well documented in the first chapter of each new scientific discipline (before relying on them) such scientific crisis would be avoided, because future generations aware of that they are assumptions and not proven facts, but still need to be validated. These will encourage or compel future generation to validate them. Most experts would certainly tolerate or even encourage (instead of insulting and snubbing) and support, if any one wants to validate such axioms or postulations.

This kind of support and encouragement would certainly accelerate scientific advancement in each of the new scientific fields. Being software professional for 27 years, I have been hearing that software engineering is in crisis for at least past 25 years. But I don’t know, if any other new scientific fields that was introduced not more than 70 years ago and evolving for decades have such undocumented flawed axioms at the root. I encourage researchers to look for such undocumented axioms or postulations in his scientific discipline of field, especially if he feels that his discipline is in crisis and have many contradictions.

If and when I become successful exposing the undocumented assumption at the root of software engineering, one of my mission is to support any researchers who wish to validate undocumented axioms in any scientific filled. I believe it is not hard to find such undocumented axioms. For example, it is not hard to find that there is no proof for axioms, such as any kind of useful software parts is a kind of components; or it is impossible to invent software components equivalent to the physical components. I believe we must encourage young researchers to find hidden axioms not having any proof. Every real scientist must accept that any thing that has no proof is an assumption. Isn’t it foolish to repeat the same mistake again and again without recognize such scientific principle?

Raju Chiluvuri

7

real-software-components.com

As technology and expertise advances, future generations could have tools and knowledge to validate the assumption. For example, technological advancements such as invention and in telescope and other knowledge helped mankind to see the Truth, but experts resisted Truth for over a century. Likewise, technological advancements such as powerful compilers for Object Oriented Programming and GUI components that are highly conducive for real-softwarecomponents and real-CBSD in existence for over 2 decades, but experts resisting Truth for nearly a decade, for example, by insulting and snubbing, if any one try to question the validity of such baseless assumptions made out of thin-air without any basis in reality (but purely based on wishful thinking and fiction).

Although Pioneer-soft is in a for profit business, Pioneer-soft willing to provide most of the source code and most of the components and tools openly. Only purpose for providing source code and rich set of reusable GUI classes and associated tools is to provide empirical evidence for real-software-components that are capable of achieving real CBD for software. So researchers can use them freely for verification, testing, learning or educational purpose only. But Pioneer-soft’s source code, components and tools are not free for commercial use or even use on not-for-profit web sites. However these components and tools can be used for free to demonstrate real-software-components by using made-up or stale data (e.g. from old database tables), which must not serve any other commercial or useful purpose. Until for-profit company Pioneeer-soft.net funded the development finalize a business-model, these components and tools/process are not for sale, and must not be used for commercial purpose.

Pioneer-soft will be providing source code and GUI library in our website within few weeks. Any one can download source code and/or library for empirical validation, testing, learning or educational purpose for free of cost. However at this stage, product is not for sale for commercial, use so Pioneer-soft can’t offer any warranty and not responsible for any losses.

Raju Chiluvuri

8

real-software-components.com