| |
Is it heresy or fraud to question the validity of untested & baseless flawed received beliefs at the root of a prevailing dominant paradigm?
|
|
|
Many experts say that he/she wants to change the world or subvert the dominant paradigm. Such statements are merely empty rhetoric, if he/she is incompetent to validate the Truth, or has no courage to question the conventional wisdom, for example, have no competence to handle counter evidence for unproven or untested baseless lies such as “parts that are designed or conducive to be reusable are components”. How could he/she change the world or subvert dominant paradigm by resorting insults, snubs or even vicious personal attacks on you, if you try to ask for proof or question validity for such untested baseless lies |
|
|
How anyone could change the world or subvert dominant paradigm by defending the unproven lies (i.e. received beliefs)? Software experts must stop self-promoting shallow rhetoric for self-promotion. They resort to vicious personal attacks or insults to suppress facts, if feel offended by the facts. For example, many great people like Galileo, Kepler or Giordano Bruno changed the world by questioning then deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and dominant paradigm of 16th century. Even facing fierce resistance and hostile attacks, they had courage to question unproven or untested baseless lie (i.e. 2300 years old received belief “the Earth is at the center”), where the lie is at the root (i.e. foundation) for 16th century dominant geocentric paradigm, which evolved and accumulated huge Body of Knowledge (BoK) for 1800 years until 16th century by relying on the lie |
|
|
Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the lies at the root of the geocentric paradigm were not yet exposed. All the great scientists born during past 400 years (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Bose, Max Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Pauli or Maxwell) could not have made any tangible contribution, except may be exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradigm. Each of them could have wasted all their hard work and passion in pursuit of fool’s errand (e.g. for making sense of inexplicable or incomprehensible epicycles or retrograde motion of the geocentric paradigm). |
|
|
Isn’t it a criminal negligence to blindly defend and promote such unproven and untested baseless lies (or received beliefs)? Kindly allow me to make a humble request (that may be perceived to be rude, obnoxious or arrogant): Please don’t defend or promote unproven and untested baseless lies such as (a) “the Earth is at the center”, (b) “software parts that are designed and/or conducive to be reusable are components” or (c) “CBD/CBE is using such fake components. |
|
|
|
The reality for components and CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) for any product is: Implementing large portion of features and functionality of a product in a set of special kind of parts that are designed and/or conducive to be assembled, where the special kind of parts is known or referred to as the components. No other kind of part (if it is not conducive to be assembled) can be a called or referred to as component for real CBD/CBE. The Newtons or Einsteins of computer science or software engineering have been wasting their efforts in pursuit of fool’s errand (e.g. to make sense of inexplicable epicycles of today’s dominant software engineering paradigm). This kind of lies diverts hard work and efforts of brilliant researchers into a wrong path. |
|
|
|
I have been struggling for a decade to expose the lies (i.e. 50 years old received beliefs) that are very foundation of existing dominant software paradigm (that has been evolved for past 50 years by relying on the lies). Today researchers have been doing everything in their power to suppress facts, evidence and reality (that can expose the baseless lies) even by resorting to hostile acts such as insults, snubbing or personal attacks. I feel, I have no other option but raising sufficient funds for suing the software research community, who are blindly defending and promoting lies such as “software parts that are conducive to be reusable are components” or “CBD/CBE is using such fake components”. Isn’t it error to define reusable parts such as ingredient parts (e.g. steel, alloys, metals, silicon or plastic, which are used in making components) are components for achieving CBD/CBE?. |
|
|
|
Even if it is perceived to be rude, heresy or fraud, this vicious cycle must be broken by force: Each generation of researchers and experts were brain washed to believe lies (i.e. received beliefs) when they were students by earlier generations of researchers and teachers. They strenuously and devotedly follow the received beliefs for years to become high-priests of the belief system. Each earlier generation play active role in brain washing each successive generation of students and researchers, who in turn are become strenuous and devoted followers of the belief system (by perceiving the received beliefs to be sacred). |
|
|
The only sure way to break this vicious cycle is compelling the research community to investigate the obvious facts, reality and evidence by suing the research community. Also, must invest sufficient money to publicize the law suit for initiating public debate in Universities, research organizations and conferences. Such open public debate results in discovery of the Truth and gaining deeper insights into the objective reality by acquiring valid knowledge of facts and reasoning. I am left with no other option but drag the research organizations funded by government to courts, because no researcher is willing to investigate the facts backed by objective reality or obvious evidence and valid reasoning. |
|
|
If someone makes a revolutionary discovery or invention and the invention works as claimed, every other problem for bringing the invention to market can be fixed by investing sufficient money. If one thinks, he invented vaccine for cancer, but if he is wrong, no amount of money can fix such fatal mistake. If the vaccine works as claimed, every other issue, mistake or problem for bringing the invention to market can be fixed by investing sufficient amount of money. My estimation for gaining sufficient traction to start irreversible chain reaction to bring our inventions and discoveries to market needs investment of US$3.2 million.. |
|
|
The investment risk must be assessed with respect to the potential gains that can be made, when successful. Our patented inventions rooted in our revolutionary discoveries could generate billions of dollars each year, if we could successfully bring them to market. The initial investment of US$3.2 million is very small compared to the potential gains and market size. The biggest risk or fatal error in this case is: the patented inventions might not work as claimed. This kind risk can be eliminated easily well before making the investment by hiring few researchers to rigorously validate our patented inventions and revolutionary discoveries for couple of days. Make the investment only when the researchers are 100% convinced that the discoveries are valid and inventions work as claimed.. |
|
| A big and most foolish mistake any investor could make in case of such revolutionary disruptive discoveries is requesting few researchers or experts for their initial opinion by looking at short presentations, discussion or introduction by emails. Any such disruptive discovery (that must subvert dominant paradigm to become successful) is supposed to be perceived initially as rude, heresy or even fraud. Such discoveries, that must undermine dominant paradigm to become successful, face fierce resistance and hostile reaction from the researchers or experts (who are proud high-priests promoting and/or passing on the dominant paradigm to successive generation of students and experts). So, it is foolish to judge the validity of such new discovery based on initial reaction of the experts. |
|
| It is impossible to overcome preconceived notions and prejudice shaped by deeply entrenched dominant paradigm rooted in such lies in 1 or 2 hours. It is proven fact that any such disruptive discovery or outside of the box invention (that questions the belief system at foundation of dominant paradigm) is perceived (by the experts) to be rude, heresy or fraud. So, it is foolish to expect endorsement of the experts (who became high-priests of dominant paradigm by education, training and experience) within couple of hours. It requires at least couple of days. |
|
| I am sure that I can convince any team of 7 to 9 independent experts that our inventions and disruptive discovery work as claimed within 16 to 20 hours. After being convinced, I am sure, the experts would agree that best way we can be successful is by dragging government funded research organizations to court for compelling the research community to look at our proof. It is impossible to find a discovery or outside of the box invention (for subverting a prevailing dominant paradigm), that doesn’t face fierce resistance or hostile reaction from the experts (i.e. high-priests by education and experience) of prevailing dominant paradigm |
|
| Such discoveries supposed to challenge or question validity of the received beliefs (considered to be inalienable self-evident or sacred facts for eternity) that are very foundation to the prevailing dominant paradigm. For example, insisting on the truth “the Sun is at center” in 16th century enraged experts (i.e. high priests of then dominant geocentric paradigm) by offending then deeply entrenched common sense and conventional wisdom. The fierce resistance and hostilities faced by the Truth is legendary. The fierce resistance and hostilities would be proportional to the size of the BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for the dominant paradigm. The BoK for existing dominant software engineering paradigm is at least 20 times more than the BoK existed in 16th century for then dominant geocentric paradigm. |
|
| Our discoveries and inventions have been facing fierce resistance and/or hostile reactions, where the fierce resistance or hostile reactions is not 20 times more and not violent, because we are in 21st century and society is much more tolerant to descent (e.g. high-priests have no power to initiate an inquisition even if they feel it is heresy). Isn’t foolish to judge such disrupting discoveries by the initial reaction or biased opinions of the experts, who have been proud high-priests (having decades of experience preceded by education) in the dominant paradigm. |
|
| Such disruptive discovery could never be proved to become successful, if it is judged by the experts indoctrinated to be high-priests of a dominant paradigm, based on 1st impressions or opinions after a brief introduction or short presentation. The time in hours and number of experts needed to validate all facts and evidence for providing convincing proof (by overcoming prejudice and preconceived notions of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and the belief system at the root of the dominant paradigm) is proportional to the BoK’s size for the dominant paradigm |
| |
|
| |
Copy Right © 2013 SPPS Systems Pvt.Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This Website presents patented and patent-pending Inventions and Discoveries |
|
|
