banner banner  
Let’s talk valid facts/evidence but not unsubstantiated conclusions/perceptions
What is the measure of real scientific progress? The scientific progress is nothing but discovering new facts supported by irrefutable evidence for expanding boundaries of human knowledge. What happened when mankind applied brute force to make scientific progress by not realizing errors in any seed premise such as 'geocentric model' (i.e. the Earth is static at the center)? The error resulted in a skewed perception (or alteration of reality, conformational bias shared by mankind) leading to a complex deeply entrenched paradigm (and collective wisdom) comprising countless unsubstantiated conclusions and axiomatic concepts.
The scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truth. Even the most popular and widely accepted postulation having an error would cause increasingly huge damage proportional to its popularity and acceptance. The most snubbed discovery of a scientific field would revolutionize the field, when proven to be a fact by exposing errors in baseless presumptions used for snubbing facts. For example, when heliocentric model was proposed almost every one snubbed it and even killed its early advocates. In science, only the truth and reason matters. It is irreverent what any one thinks (e.g. axiomatic assumptions) without being supported by facts and sound reasoning.

Miscellaneous Documents (or References)

1   It is essential to have open mind to discover objective facts
2    Is it a small mistake (that can be ignored without fatal consequences)?
3   The first true Kuhnian paradigm shift by nature is controversial
4   Discoveries of Errors in basic Axioms leads to Scientific Revolution
5   How is it possible to expose error in seed postulation of mature paradigm?
This axiomatic conclusions or altered reality due to skewed perception makes it impossible to provide scientific reasoning for exposing errors in most of the axiomatic concepts of old paradigm, since due to skewed perception and conformational bias most of the empirical evedence (e.g. epicycles and retrograde motion) perceived to be proving the old paradigm. Until the error in the basic premises (or seed postulations) of geocentric model (i.e. CBSD) is realized no meaningful progress is possible. Unfortunately skewed perception, conformational bias, skewed observations and axiomatic conclusions from the deeply entrenched paradigm (and collective wisdom) resulted from the skewed perception were used for denying the facts (i.e. new discoveries and reality) by justifying the erroneous seed postulations (and to deny reality).
  Each of the compelling conclusions such as epicycles & retrograde motion was based on impeccable logic and persuasive reasoning backed by irrefutable empirical evidence. Any expert (e.g. an astronomer) standing on the Earth can verify epicycles/retrograde motion of planets. Now we all know what went wrong. Can computer science afford to repeat the same mistake by not properly verifying the axiomatic premises (or seed postulations, which obviously contradict many known facts related to the physical-components/real-CBD)?  
There are errors in the seed axioms of the software engineering and exposing the errors results in formalizing the software engineering. It is hard to find any errors of this magnitude in the seed axioms of any other field, since exposing the error in the Geocentric model. The mankind learned a valuable lesson that: There exists an accurate answer (based on objective facts) to each and every physical thing/being or physical phenomenon. If the accurate answer (based on objective facts) is absolute truth, there exists a valid explanation (based on objective facts) for each and every perceived contradiction (instead of using baseless excuses such as our scientific field is unique or different to justify each of the contradictions).
Today no formalized science or real engineering accepts baseless excuses such as our scientific field is unique or different to justify any baseless conclusions or to explain valid contradictions (e.g. to maintain a paradox by denying scientific principles). Instead of demanding evidence, brilliant minds in computer science yet to see anything wrong in using such baseless excuses. For example,  any accurate answer (e.g. description of a being or phenomenon) can be invalidated by finding even a single valid contradiction, even if the accurate answer is proved by using hundreds of valid observations and facts. These are basic principles or known facts of any formalized science, which was formalized due to the first real paradigm shift (resulted from the exposing the error in the axiomatic Geocentric model).
The computer science is a real science based on sound mathematical logic and software engineering is a real engineering for designing and building complex products. Therefore, they must be and can be formalized, based on objective facts. Of course, the products designed and build, by software engineers, may need to address subjective visions. The creation of software products is not different from many of the physical products such as consumer products (e.g. iPhone, Facebook, factory to make tasty-foods or Movies). Unfortunately many software experts fail to recognize the distinction between the 2 aspects of a product likeability & creation.
For example, the likeability of each Movie is subjective (based on vision of its Director), but the technologies and tools used for making the movie (to satisfy the vision of its Director) is not subjective. Likewise, the science and engineering for designing and building any complex software to satisfy the vision of the director (e.g. inventor of story-telling) is not subjective, while the creative genius or vision of its directors is subjective. For example, Facebook or iPhone is likeable or successful because of the greatness of creative vision - It is a kind of impressive story-telling (but not by a new scientific discovery or technological invention that didn’t exist before).
In other words, a real technological invention can accomplish a certain tangible results (i.e. that is objective), but can’t guarantee likeability (i.e. that is subjective). For example, I invented GUI-API for building complex 2D/3D real-time data-driven online applications, where our patented GUI-API is more flexile and easy to use than the desktop GUI-APIs such as Windows/VB/VC++ or Java/Swing. It is purely a subjective assumption: I felt there could be large enough market need for deploying such GUI applications online, based on great success of GUI applications (i.e. Apple & Microsoft) on the desktop platforms during late 1980s and early 1990s.
Our patented GUI-API for RIA (Rich Internet Applications) is certainly a real technological invention, since it can accomplish things that are not practically possible without using our GUI-API. For example, our GUI-API is can be useful for creating more complex GUI applications than practical today even by using desktop GUI-APIs exist today, since our GUI-API is capable of creating real-components and hierarchies of swappable modules (i.e. in a CBD-strcture). But of course, our invention may become successful, only if experts know such invention exists today and if there is a real market need to deploy such complex 2D/3D real-time data-driven RIA .
Our invention for creating a GUI-API (i.e. any set of reusable classes for GUI-components for any software application) is protected by USPTO patents numbers 7,827,527; 7,840,937 and 8,527,943; where the reusable GUI-classes can be more flexible and easy to use than reusable GUI-classes for desktop GUI-APIs such as Java/Swing or Windows/VB/VC++ for building 2D/3D graphics intensive real-time data-driven RIA (Rich Internet Applications) that can be more complex than practical even on the desktop platforms. Our patented GUI-API is the only GUI-API existing today that is capable of building large real-software-components having multiple large GUI-components for achieving the CBD-structure for large GUI-applications.
The scientific progress is discovering new facts or truths to expand the boundaries of human knowledge. The scientific progress would be certainly hindered, if any unsubstantiated opinion or assumption perceived or accepted as a truth and if there is an error in such opinion or assumption. What are the chances for not having errors in axiomatic assumption made in early formative years of software? Today's software engineering evolved from few erroneous axiomatic assumptions, which obviously resulted in a paradox having many contradictions, where the contradictions are ignored or justified by using erroneous excuses such as software is unique or different.
Today many experts state or believe such a opinion or assumption derived from the paradox are facts. In a real scientific debate there is no room for opinions, which can’t be substantiated by using real facts and sound rational reasoning. Only an incompetent researcher insists others must accept baseless opinion as a fact, while refusing to substantiate it by giving baseless excuses or quoting half truths out of context. I provided irrefutable proof in this website for each and every fact and willing to stand by and defend each and every concept. I am more than happy to provide any clarification, if any one needs more specific details or have questions.
  Leading the Software Engineering Revolution
Copy Right © 2013 SPPS Systems Pvt.Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This Website presents patented and patent-pending Inventions and Discoveries