banner banner  

Few useful quotes of Galileo Galilee relevant when exposing errors in seed premise

These quotes of Galileo Galilee those are still relevant,
when exposing errors in the seed postulations of deeply entrenched paradigm
of a nascent field of science that never experienced real paradigm shift

(the first real paradigm shift transforms any field form more informal to more formal science)
1 “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
2 “I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”
3 “It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”
4 “Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.”
5 "Names and attributes must be accommodated to the essence of things, and not the essence to the names, since things come first and names afterwards."
6 “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
7 “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves” (or “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.”)
8 “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”
9 “Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.”
10 "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox"
For example, science fiction movies or books maintain a paradox by defining or inventing nature without any consideration to reality or facts. But real progress requires relying on facts by discovering nature of each kind of physical beings (e.g. functional-components) or phenomenon (e.g. real-CBD).
11 "Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty"
12 "And yet it moves" -- Galileo said to be grumbled after forced to accept that 'the Earth is static' under the threat of death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment for accepting geocentric-model.
Most of the reviewers of research papers are obsessed with references and often refuse to properly evaluate the paper based on the merits and facts. Many insist on citation of references even for obvious facts. Where can I find citation for obvious facts such as, a physical CBD-product must contain physical components? In other words, no other kind of physical parts except a very special kind of physical parts (unique properties referred to as) physical components can achieve the CBD-structure. Isn’t it an error to user term component as a synonym for parts (e.g. ingredient-parts such as cement, steel, bricks, plastic, silicon or metals)? In the context of physical CBD-products, common sense is the only reference available for such obvious facts.
I can’t find any references in software or even in modern engineering, except the famous quotes of Galileo Galilee, who had struggled to expose errors in seed premise (or postulation) of a paradigm that had been deeply entrenched for thousand years. Unfortunately even in the 21st century, to my surprise, have been facing a similar unsubstantiated resistance and irrational skepticism. When Galileo offered to show proof using his telescope, Galileo complained that the philosophers in the dark ages refuse to see the light of the truth. Today we can demonstrate many CBD-structures built by assembling real software components, but reviewers refuse to look at such concrete evidence by insisting on references (of which many are compelling fiction, since they all are derived from erroneous seed postulations).
Therefore, my paper submitted to a research conference used quotes of Galileo as references. One of the reviewer condescendingly commented that I am comparing my self with Galileo. Galileo is great man and I admire him. If any one uses quotes from the Bible, is he comparing himself with the God? Since when quoting a great man one admires is comparing oneself with the great man? I resent this kind of uncalled for insults or humiliations.
The scientific conferences that solicit research papers completely useless for exposing errors in the seed postulations. There are so many limitations. For example, one size fits all approach limits the evidence we can include in 10 to 12 pages, which may be more than enough for incremental ideas. The reviewers refuse to see the physical evidence (e.g. the real-software components and CBD-structure created by using the real-software components). Many reviewers simply refuse to believe obvious facts by using silly baseless excuses such as software is different or unique. Many also refuse to substantiate their statements or excuses.
In his letter to Kepler in year 1610, Galileo complained that the philosophers (i.e. Scientists were referred to as philosophers) who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope.
"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
The reviewers of scientific papers must be open to look at the physical evidence, if clear and conclusive proof backed by facts, valid observations and sound rational reasoning is not sufficient. But unfortunately reviewers refuse to see the truth (e.g. real CBD-structures comprising RSCCs) by using axiomatic concepts of paradigm built on erroneous postulations.
While other reviewers insist that RSCCs are nothing new but refuse to show at least one software-component as large as CityLandmarks in City_GIS, which is designed as replaceable component by encapsulating code for using dozens of reusable GUI-classes and associated application-logic in a RCC (Replaceable Component Class) anywhere in the world. Although it is quite possible, vendor of no other GUI-API not yet realized need for designing the GUI-API to encapsulate large applications such as City_GIS in a RCC (for making is replaceable component).
It is very hard even for huge amount of evidence, facts, valid observations and sound reasoning to expose errors in seed postulation of deeply entrenched paradigm. Due to limit on pages, I work very hard to pack so much reasoning, observations and facts in the limited pages, and the reviewers reject the paper by writing 3 to 5 sentences by quoting our observations or reasoning out of context and/or by making citations of research papers derived form the erroneous seed postulations or axiomatic concepts of existing erroneous paradigm. The reviewers are anonymous, so I can’t refute such baseless or silly excuses. Not all papers are for incremental ideals, where many authors of such incremental ideas often complain they can’t find any thing to fill last 50% pages (so have so much space left to support even simple idea). 

Copy Right © 2013 SPPS Systems Pvt.Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This Website presents patented and patent-pending Inventions and Discoveries