Abstract: To prove that computer science is a pseudo/fake science, it is .... (e.g. having high degree of certain kind of synergy) that can be implemented in each.
Proof that today Computer Science is a Pseudo/Fake Science, And it can be easily Transformed into a Real/Hard Science
Abstract: To prove that computer science is a pseudo/fake science, it is essential to investigate obvious facts, evidence and well known reality to answer these 2 simple questions: What is the true Nature and Properties of the physical Components? What is the Nature and Essence of the CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products? Is it possible to invent cures for infections, if scientists blindly define nature and properties of versus and bacteria (without giving any consideration to reality or facts)? If it is wrong to blindly define nature and properties of versus or bacteria, why is it not wrong to blindly define nature and properties of components or CBD (without any basis in reality/fact)? Is it hard to understand this simple logic: Is it possible to invent fibre optic networks, if researchers blindly define nature and properties of light (without any basis in reality/fact)? Is it possible to invent electronic chips (Integrated Circuits), if researchers blindly define nature and properties of electrons (without any basis in reality/fact)? How can researchers invent real-software-components for real CBD if researchers blindly define nature and properties of components and CBD, not only without any basis in reality/fact but also in clear contradiction to the known reality and facts about the physical components and CBD of physical products?
Introduction: Mankind erroneously concluded more than 2000 years ago that “the Earth is static (at the centre)” is a self-evident fact. It was the most educated and best possible assumption based on then best available knowledge, observations and experiences. No one questioned its validity for over 1500 years. It was impossible to http://real-software-components.com
1
Raju Chiluvuri
validate (i.e. prove or disprove) the belief (“the Earth is static”) using primitive technology, tools and knowledge exited 2000 years ago. Just because no one questioned or expressed any reservation or doubt about its validity for 1500 years can’t make it a scientific Truth. The researchers 2000 years ago violated basic scientific principles and processes by not documenting the assumption (e.g. for future generations to validate). They really didn’t violate any known scientific rules (i.e. principles and processes), because they didn’t know any rules, since the rules were formulated and established only during and ever since the start of scientific revolution, when the error at the root of geocentric paradigm was exposed. Scientists learned valuable lessons from the scientific crisis (from the mistakes) and ensuing scientific revolution after exposing the mistakes.
The basic scientific rules (i.e. scientific principles & processes) were formulated to prevent repeating same basic mistakes never again in the future. Today scientific rules have been well established and widely accepted. The rules have no exceptions. There is no ambiguity or debate anymore. It is essential for any real science to strictly follow the basic scientific rules. For example, not documenting unproven beliefs and relying on such unproven beliefs (by concluding them to be self-evident facts) in 20th century is a blatant violation of the scientific rules. There is no exception to this rule: Any scientific discipline that violates the basic scientific rules is purely a fake science.
In clear violation of the scientific rules: About 50 years ago software researchers erroneously believed that software is different and/or unique. Erroneously concluded that it is impossible to invent real software components (that
http://real-software-components.com
2
Raju Chiluvuri
are equivalent to the physical functional components) for achieving real CBD (that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products). That assumption or belief may be true in light of primitive tools, knowledge and technologies (e.g. FORTRAN or Assembly Languages) 40 to 45 years ago, but such beliefs are no longer true since 1990. Software tools, technologies and knowledge progressed substantially during past 50 years. In fact, software engineering advanced more than sufficiently to invalidate the beliefs more than 25 years ago.
In real/hard science, anything that is not yet proved must be considered and/or treated as an assumption (even it is perceived to be an inalienable selfevident truth) until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Also the proof must be openly provided for anyone to validate and falsifiable any time in the future, if there is a flaw in the proof. This poof can be falsified any time in the future, for example, if or when either a new inexplicable anomaly is uncovered or contradictory new evidence is found, if or when technology advanced sufficiently to measure more precisely etc.
Software researchers violated basic scientific rules (i.e. processes & principles) by not only relying on unproven beliefs (e.g. by concluding them to be self-evident facts) but also by not documenting either the unproven beliefs or proof (if they are proven facts). No hard science must tolerate inexplicable anomaly or contradictions to any fact or proof. But software engineering paradigm filled with inexplicable retrograde motions and epicycles, which are not only tolerated but also vigorously defended by using more unproven beliefs, silly excuses and/or observations of other epicycles.
http://real-software-components.com
3
Raju Chiluvuri
Let me explain, how far away we are from software scientific & technological revolution. The hardest part for achieving real CBD is discovering the nature and essential properties of the components by gaining sufficient knowledge and hands on experience and insights to positively identify each set of features and functionality (e.g. having high degree of certain kind of synergy) that can be implemented in each of the replaceable components for the application. In case of non-GUI applications, it may take anywhere between few weeks to couple of months training and practice to acquire this kind of knowledge and expertise for software designers. It is not hard compared to other models such as UML (Unified Modelling Language) or OOA/OOD.
Hence, software designers and architects need just few months of training. All the necessary basic tools and technologies are already available. There are no missing pieces that can prevent real COP for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for software). It just needs few months of time to improve them and/or customize them, as or when required. More powerful tools and technologies can be invented, but that are neither essential nor can prevent COP for achieving real CBD. Software technology progress sufficiently more than 20 years ago, but there are few missing pieces – Those pieces were not invented and built not for the deficiency in technological advancements but the pieces were not necessary without the invention of real-software-components and real COP for achieving real CBSD.
Relying on any unproven belief (i.e. the Earth is static) was still a violation, even if it was innocent and justifiable violation, because the basic scientific rules were not fully formulated until 18th century. Such violation still stings, even if it is an innocent mistake. Even innocent one-year-old girl gets electric shock, if she puts
http://real-software-components.com
4
Raju Chiluvuri
fingers in an electric outlet. Keeping fingers in an electric outlet (and screaming software is in crisis) is pure stupidity for top software scientists. Repeating such violations after 1960 is not justifiable and continues to ignore my loud and clear warnings is pure foolish and not realizing such blatant violations by refusing to investigate obvious facts to even see reality is not just pure incompetence but doesn’t it border on criminal negligence?
Irrefutable Proof: Computer Science is a Pseudo Science
The facts and evidence below must be shocking to any real scientist: What is the only main difference between the hard sciences and soft sciences (Kindly refer to wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science)? The hard sciences deal with objective facts and reality such as nature and properties of physical things or physical phenomena. The soft sciences deal with subjective things, but trying hard to increase the degree of objectivity, such as investigating reality and evidence to see, if they can discover or invent methods to measure and/or quantify the subjective things, for example to improve ability to predict the subjective things or phenomena.
Galileo Galilee’s quote::-- “Measure what can be measured, and make measurable what cannot be measured.”
The hard sciences deal with objective things and reality that are measurable, repeatable, demonstrable and predictable. The hard sciences deal with immutable physical reality or facts or physical phenomena (i.e. only our perception of reality or facts may change or evolve, but fact and reality never changes). The essential http://real-software-components.com
5
Raju Chiluvuri
nature, reality, facts and properties of physical things (e.g. electrons, light, viruses, bacteria or the physical components) are immutable, but only the understanding and perception of scientists or researchers has been changing and improving or evolving.
The soft sciences deal with subjective things and uncertainties of reality or phenomena, such as varying degrees of influences and/or interactions of religions, cultures, charismatic leaders, technological progress, political ideologies (e.g. flavours of communism, capitalism or socialism) and human instincts (e.g. degrees of greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions), on economics, social/ethnic groups or regions (not to forget numerous other factors such as wars, terrorism or natural calamities such as tsunamis), which are hard to measure, predict or repeatable.
The goal of soft science is to employ proven scientific methods such as principles and processes to acquire knowledge objectively, for example, to gain insights and understanding, for improving the probability of predictions or improving the approximation of quantitative measurements. The fact is: The soft sciences call themselves sciences, because their goal is to employ proven scientific principles and processes to gain knowledge and insights about subjective things & uncertain reality.
One thing in common for hard sciences and soft sciences is: Both are trying to gain insights and knowledge of nature of things and reality by employing proven basic scientific principles and processes. The one & only difference is hard sciences deal with objective physical things and phenomena (having immutable nature and properties or aspects), while soft sciences are forced to deal with subjective things and uncertainties of reality or unpredictable phenomena, having so many varying
http://real-software-components.com
6
Raju Chiluvuri
flavours, uncertainties and unknown exceptions to the rules, which in turn changing and influenced by unpredictable future events, leaders, technology progress or wars.
Today Computer Science is a fake science because: It not only ignored reality and facts but also blatantly violated basic scientific principles and processes when dealing with quintessential objective things and facts such as nature and properties of components for CBD or neurons for AI. Isn’t it insult to even soft sciences, if any one insists that computer science is a soft science, because soft sciences neither ignore reality and facts nor blatantly violate basic scientific principles and processes.
The nature and properties of the physical components that are essential for achieving real CBD of physical products is immutable. Hence can be and must be discovered. Blindly defining nature and properties for so called software components and CBSD is a monumental mistake by blatantly ignoring the immutable reality and obvious facts (e.g. essential properties of the components for achieving real CBD).
Any real scientist must not have any problem understanding this simple proof. In fact, such blatant violations must be shocking to any real scientist - This error already cost trillions of dollars by derailing progress of software engineering and AI for decades. Any discipline of even hard sciences (e.g. botany, zoology or chemistry) would become fake sciences, if researcher were to violate proven basic scientific rules. Today few disciplines of computer science (e.g. CBSD or AI) became fake sciences, which can be easily transformed into real sciences by just realizing the errors and following the scientific rules. Today software engineering is a fake engineering and is in crisis, because its scientific foundation is fundamentally flawed.
http://real-software-components.com
7
Raju Chiluvuri
