More than 2000 years ago mankind justifiably concluded that “the Earth is static (at the center)” is a self-evident fact. For the next 1500 years mankind’s knowledge evolved by relying on this so called self-evident fact. This resulted in a deeply entrenched complex paradoxical paradigm, which later named as geocentric paradigm. The resultant conventional wisdom (supported by countless concepts and observations) and perception of reality is illustrated by the figure-1 in: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html
How to expose the flawed seed causes for such paradoxical paradigms, If such deeply entrenched paradoxical paradigm exist in any scientific discipline even in the 21st century?
Let me illustrate causes for such paradoxical paradigm using a real example: Software researchers concluded 50 years (during 1960s) that software is unique and different is a self-evident fact. That may be justifiable conclusion at that time, when assembly language is widely used programming language and FORTRAN was leading-edge programming language.
Based on this conclusion (i.e. so called self-evident fact), few researchers proposed definitions for software components without any basis in reality or fact, but based on their desire to increase re-usability. The tacit implications (or assumptions) of above conclusions (i.e. so called self-evident facts) include, tacit belief such as (i) it is impossible to invent real-software-components that are equivalent to the physical functional components, even if it were possible to discover accurate description (i.e. essential properties) for the physical functional components and (ii) it is impossible to achieve real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software), where real-CBSD is equivalent to the CBD of the physical products, even if it is possible to discover accurate description (i.e. essential aspect) of the CBD of physical products.
During the 1970s, thousands of software researchers started researching to invent so called software components around the world by relying on the so called self-evident facts, which resulted in countless research publications and concepts. During the 1980s, tens of thousands of researcher try to advance our knowledge by relying on the widely accepted concepts and observations (e.g. including experience reports). Likewise, tens of thousands of researcher around the world published countless research papers for concepts and experience reports during each of the successive decades (e.g. last decade of 20th century, first decade of 21st century).
Saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended then deeply entrenched common sense 500 years ago. It was impossible to find even single concept or observation that supports the Truth, while one could find countless concepts and observations to either to support the lie “the Earth is static” or to discredit the Truth. The chronology of events illustrate the complexity and highly hostile environment existed to expose such error at the root: http://real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology. How any one can expose the error in the seed axioms (i.e. concluded to be self-evident facts) at the root of any such paradoxical paradigm?
All the greatest minds (e.g.
Max Plank or Einstein) born during past 400 years couldn’t have made any
lasting meaningful contribution to the mankind’s scientific knowledge, if the
error at the root of geocentric paradigm were not exposed. It is impossible to
make any other kind of meaningful contribution to the geocentric paradigm (even
to the greatest scientists and philosophers), except validating and/or
discovering the erroneous untested and undocumented tacit assumption (i.e. the
earth is static) at the root of the geocentric paradigm. Newton
Trying to advance any such paradoxical paradigm is huge waste of time and fool’s errand. Only lasting contribution, one could possibly make is exposing the error at the root of such paradoxical paradigm. But unfortunately each of the researchers in the scientific discipline must have made many contributions such as many researcher papers and observations/experience reports. I am sure they have used impeccable reasoning and sound logic to derive each of the concepts and observations proposed in the research papers. Even the retrograde motions and epicycles are irrefutable facts, if the Earth is static. Any one can observe the retrograde motions by standing on so called static Earth, but now we know what went wrong. For example, each of the research papers published in 21st century relied on and referred to countless research papers widely accepted in the 20th century.
The figure-4 illustrates the existing perception of reality, which is heliocentric paradigm. But any concept or observation in the heliocentric paradigm contradicted dozens of widely accepter concepts and observations of geocentric paradigm. Hence it makes it impossible to have any productive debate or discussion, if the researchers are not willing to look at the facts objectively with open mind. It is impossible to see the Truth form the prism of geocentric paradigm.
Only question 500 years ago is, which planet is at the center? Likewise, the questions now must be: (1) Is it possible to discover essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components? (1) Is it possible to discover essential aspects uniquely and universally shared by each and every known CBD of physical products? If answers are yes, why is it not possible to invent real-software-components that are equivalent to the physical functional components (by sharing the essential properties) for achieving real CBSD, which is equivalent to the real CBD of physical products (by sharing the essential aspects)?
Sorry for long background. I feel, one must understand the seed causes for creation and process of evolution of complex paradoxical paradigm to answer my question. Saying “the Sun at the center” offended common sense. Today saying, many researchers feel offended, when I say that the definitions for so called software components have no basis in reality/facts and flawed. Many experts refuse even talk to me, but few who may be kind enough to talk to me insist that, I must refer to long list of papers published during past 30 years.
Others insist that I must read books such as “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, or “What Is This Thing Called Science?” by Alan Chalmers. Although I read many of such books and research papers, do I need to know the contents of all the books on philosophy of science and research papers on software components ever published to say that the seed axiom was never tested and validated?