Page Text: Nov 10, 2020
Dear Friends,
Can you guess which one is the most mysterious and enigmatic physical thing among these things such as biological cells, light, elementary particles (e.g. electrons, neutrons or protons), viruses, fungi, bacteria, atoms, chemical compounds, biological cells, blood cells or finally plain old components, in the context of engineering paradigms (e.g. mechanical, electronics, or aerospace) for designing and building large products (e.g. cars, airplanes, computers, factory machinery or spacecraft)?
The greatest tools for acquiring and using knowledge for technological progress and great inventions are (i) scientific method and (ii) mathematics, where these two tools provide complementary perspectives for gaining deeper insights. Each act like a light to illuminate mutually complementary sides, perspectives or dimensions. Since software researchers refuse to use scientific method (i.e. light of science), software community wasted 50 years and failed to solve software crisis and ended up with a useless fake CBE-paradigm.
If fake scientists still don’t realize that it is a mistake to blatantly violate scientific principles, they are going to repeat same kind of mistakes for Artificial Intelligence research and development. Many things would stay enigmatic and end up in a crisis, like software crisis. Many things that are inexplicable and puzzling or enigmatic in the perspective of mathematics can become crystal clear from the scientific perspective, since light of scientific method illuminates the dark spots left by light of mathematics.
Today, greatest enigmas for researchers of software and computer science include answers to following simple questions such as what is meant by a component in the context of all the other engineering disciplines, and what is meant by CBE (Component Based Engineering) that successfully eliminated engineering crisis form designing and building large and complex products (unlike software crisis).
Even if we know just 30% about bacteria or viruses that has been documented in the textbooks, each and every piece of knowledge can only be included in the textbooks, if and only if the piece of knowledge is supported by falsifiable proof. It impossible to find a piece of knowledge that is not supported by a falsifiable proof. There is a possibility that 20% of the knowledge in the textbooks might be falsified by finding counter evidence in the future such as new discoveries or empirical evidence.
Since mankind have enough valid knowledge about things such as bacteria, light or electrons, researchers are able to invent great things such as treatments for many kinds of infections, fibre-optic networks or semi-conductor chips respectively.
On the other hand, none of the knowledge about the components in the textbooks for computer science or software is either tested (e.g. no one challenged) or supported by any falsifiable proof. But there is a possibility that up to 20% of the knowledge might be proven valid in the future. However, I am sure that 80% of the knowledge in the textbooks is invalid and not open for challenge.
Even simple things such as what component is and what is meant by CBE stayed an enigma and mysterious for many decades, since knowledge in the textbooks about components is untested and invalid. Fake scientists at NSF ( that I prefer to call National Fake Science Foundation) feel offended, if anyone challenges their myths about so called components.
Anything would be less enigmatic or mysterious, even if we only have 30% valid knowledge than another thing that has huge knowledge, but significant portion of the knowledge is invalid. Hence, plain old components are far more mysterious and enigmatic than the invisible things such as viruses, electrons and biological cells. We made many useful inventions by even by relying on the limited valid knowledge.
Can you name any physical thing on the Earth that is more mysterious and enigmatic for scientific community than plain old components used for designed and building large Component-Based Products (or CBP), by taking into consideration all the knowledge in the published scientific literature and textbooks for all scientific disciplines?
A thing must be the most mysterious and enigmatic, if there is a large BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the thing and if larger percentage of the BoK is invalid (e.g. untested and unproven). The main reasons that makes anything enigmatic is not just lack of sufficient valid BoK but also having large chunks of invalid knowledge.
Isn’t it fascinating? Even such simple to acquire knowledge would stay mysterious and enigmatic (and creates a paradox and crisis), if researchers refuse to use the light of scientific principles to illuminate dark spots that are in the realm of science, since such dark spots can’t be illuminated by the light of mathematics.
I invented solutions for software crisis by gaining scientific knowledge essential for understanding mysterious components essential for achieving the elusive and enigmatic CBE-paradigms, in the context of all the other engineering disciplines. The fake scientists of computer science foolishly refusing to use light of scientific method.
The NSF that supposed to uphold scientific principles and scientific method, but is breaking scientific principles, protocols and code of conduct for scientific discourse, which is essential for progress of science and technology. Any accepted theory (i.e. theory or concepts derived from the theory that are being used by practitioners of any craft or trade) must be treated as an assumption, if the theory is not supported by a falsifiable proof (that is backed by repeatable evidence and/or verifiable facts).
The practitioners of astronomy or astrology had been practiced their trade or craft until 16th century by relying on the 2300-year-old theory “the Earth is static at the centre” (and concepts or observations derived from the theory). Mankind falsely concluded that “the Earth is static at the centre” is self-evident fact, so no one bothered to support this unproven theory by finding a falsifiable proof.
Since there was no falsifiable proof for such core first-principles in the foundation, it was impossible to challenge the huge BoK (Body of the Knowledge) acquired and accumulated for 1800 years for creating the dominant paradigm until 16th century by relying on such core first-principles. The scientific community in dark ages used illegal circular logic to defend the core first-principles.
For example, they used the observable facts such as epicycles, non-uniform speeds of planets, lack of stellar parallax and retrograde motions to defend the presumption “the Earth is static at the centre”. Countless concepts, observations and other derived theories in the whole BoK that had been accumulated for 1800 years can be used to defend the belief “the Earth is at the centre”.
The scientific method, protocols and processes for discourse has been created and perfected to prevent this. The biggest problem to subvert a flawed dominant paradigm is overcoming the illegal circular logic, which rely on the huge BoK acquired and accumulated for the paradigm. This kind of thing can be prevented by having falsifiable proof for the core first-principles at the foundation of any dominant paradigm.
When there is a falsifiable proof and if the theory is flawed, it is straight forward to falsify the proof by finding one or more verifiable and/or repeatable counterevidence. This is the reason the scientific method is created, which requires that each theory must be supported by a falsifiable proof.
Unfortunately, today software researchers and experts using the huge BoK in the textbooks and published literature that has been acquired and accumulated for past 50 years by relying on untested and unproven core first-principles in the pre-paradigmatic foundation such as about so called components for software and computer science is a branch of mathematics etc.
About 80% of the accumulated knowledge we have in textbooks and other published literature about the components for software is untested, unchallenged and invalid. Having invalid knowledge makes anything enigmatic, mysterious or paradoxical. Anything would become more and more enigmatic, mysterious or paradoxical, if it acquires and accumulates more and more knowledge and if larger and larger percent of the knowledge accumulated is invalid.
Every piece of scientific knowledge for any physical thing in the textbook must be well tested, challenged, and musty be supported by falsifiable proof backed by empirical evidence that must be open for challenge. Scientists of computer science must be ashamed of them-selves, if they feel offended by counter evidence or facts to expose untested or unproven knowledge about the enigmatic components.
Isn’t it pathetic, if the NSF (National Fake Science Foundation) don’t know or can’t understand basic scientific principles, processes and basic code of conduct? I oppose passing “The Endless Frontiers Act (S. 3832)” to fund the Fake Science foundation, until fake scientists at NSF understand basic scientific principles and processes and strictly implement the code of conduct for upholding the truth.
I wish to file a court case to block the act (i.e. The Endless Frontiers Act) to prevent tens of billions of dollars flush down the drain by the fake scientists at CISE, since nearly 50% of the US$100 billion goes to the CISE of Fake Science Foundation.
Best Regards,