| |
| Objective Matters (or Truths) Verses Subjective Matters (or Concepts) |
|
|
True essence of real scientific progress is discovering new objective facts (or truths) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.
Many of the things (e.g. concepts/matters) in the world are not subjective, for example, few purely objective matters include, what is an elephant, what is a pig, what is a mammal, what is a component, what is zoology or botany, what is physics/chemistry, what is CDB (Component Based Design), or what is calculus. The above objective matters are unlike many of the other subjective concepts in the world, for example a few purely objective matters include, what is the best color, what is the best pet (e.g. Dog/Cat), who is the best actor or beautiful lady. |
|
| It is a waste of time to debate either purely subjective or purely objective matters. In case of purely subjective matters, no one can win an argument or debate. In case of purely objective matters, there is nothing to argue, since there is only one true answer and
shared goal of reasonable experts having common sense must be trying to research,
grasp and analyze facts, for example to discover best possible answer closest to the absolute Truth. In case of a debate related to subjective
concept(s), experts try to either win or present their perspective in an attractive manner, for example to convince others. |
|
| In case of objective matters, it is foolish to engage or try to win argument. The ultimate winner is the one who discovers the best answer that is closest to the absolute
truth. So it is foolish to engage in debate as if it is subjective matter by not investigating all facts. Hence I am only interested in discovering the closest possible truth by researching and objectively analyzing all facts, observations and applying sound rational reasoning to fill any simple gaps. The greatest scientific discoveries (e.g. of Newton, Galileo or Einstein) are made not by winning arguments but by discovering answers
supported by facts and valid objective observations, where the
discovaries are closer to truth (even at the risk of loosing arguments and suffering life imprisonment or burned alive). |
|
| The physical components and CBD (Component-based Design)
for physical products are not subjective matters. It is an error to
randomly define software components and CBSD by refusing to learn
obvious facts and reality. It is error to define multiple kinds of software components, where each kind of component is a kind of software parts having certain properties (or conform to a model),
and to define CBSD is using such fake software components. |
|
| Is the answer to a question “What is an elephant?” subjective. For example any animal such as rat or serpent can be confused with an elephant? Is the answer to a question “What is an animal?” subjective. For example things like an oak tree or a car can be confused with animal? Even a child knows answers to these questions and can easily recognize
(i.e. positively identify) an elephant or an animal (without having any confusion), when he sees one. |
|
| Likewise, answers to the questions ““What is a component?” and “What is CBD (Component-based Design) of a product?” are not subjective (in the context of designing and building physical products). For example, any engineer can easily recognize a physical component or a physical product designed by using CBD (without having any confusion), when he sees one.
Likewise, it is possible to discover innate nature of 'real
components' for positively identifying equivalent real software
components in large software products. |
|
|
Important Note: The mankind instinctively uses few essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every animal for not only identifying an animal and distinguish any other being/thing (if the being/thing is not an animal) from the animals. Therefore, the objective for discovering the unique properties (or hidden-nature) of animals (or components) are (a) one must be able to positively or unambiguously identify each animal (or component) and (b) one must be able to positively or unambiguously differentiate any other being (e.g. a thing or part) form the animal (or component), if and only if the being is not an animal (or component).
The software experts must not have any problem for positively identifying about 90% of large SCC
(Self-contained
components) in any large software application,
when they discover the essential properties that are uniquely and shared by each and every physical active-component.
|
|
| How is it possible to confuse other kinds of
physical parts (e.g. cement, silicon, plastic or sheets of metals) with the physical components (e.g. Hard Drive, CPU or engine of a car)? Why researchers of computer science
and software engineering (without any basis in reality) defined software parts (e.g.
equivalent to other kind of physical parts such as ingredients) as software components and defined using such fake software components is CBSD (CBD for software)? |
|
| In the context of physical products, using any other kind of parts (how useful the parts might be) is not CBD, except using a very special and unique kind of parts (referred to as components). It is an irrefutable fact and there is no ambiguity, so
real-CBD is neither subjective nor open for debate. The physical components are very special kind of parts having very unique nature and essential properties, which are also neither subjective nor open for debate. Hence the essential properties and unique nature must be & can be discovered. |
|
| The software crisis will be solved, if software researchers try to objectively analyze all the known facts and easily verifiable observations for answering the questions about the real components and real CBD objectively, which exposes the errors in basic postulations or axioms (since the errors derailed advancement of the software engineering) and exposing errors puts the software engineering on right track for resuming the advancement. For example, exposing the errors results in invention of real software components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real CBD for software (that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products), which together offer benefits equal or better than the benefits enjoyed by designers of new complex physical CBD-products. |
|
| For example, the horses are unique kind of animals having certain specific characteristics. Since the specific characteristics of the horses are well known even known to kids, it is an obvious error to assume dogs are a kind of horses and cats are another kinds of horses. Today it is a heresy to point out such obvious mistake in the software industry. Unfortunately specific characteristics or nature of real components are unknown and no one ever tried to discover the nature of real components. The software researchers erroneously defined many kinds of components without any basis in the reality, for example by assuming certain kind of software parts is a kind of software components, another kind of parts are yet another kind of software components, and so on. |
|
| This resulted in many kinds of CBSDs (CBD for software) that have been created for decades by relying on erroneous postulations, such as, each kind CBSD is using a kind of software parts (by erroneously assuming certain kinds of parts are a kind of software components). The software researchers maintaining this paradox and defending contradictions by denying obvious facts, for example by using baseless excuses such as software is unique, different or impossible to invent real software components equivalent to the physical components, without even trying to discover hidden nature and properties of the physical components. |
|
| The answers to questions such as “What is an elephant or horse” may be subjective for alien species living on a distant planet, who received just text transmission and the text is poorly translated. Here on the earth answers to questions such as ‘What is Higgs boson (God particle)’ or concepts such as ‘String Theory’ or ‘Big bang theory’ may be subjective, because mankind still doesn’t
have all the information. Of course, every expert knows that the theory
is subjective, but perceived to be most promising way for finding
objective facts. On the other hand, mankind knows all the necessary facts about real components and CBD of the physical products, but unfortunately software researchers refuse to acknowledge and objectively analyze the facts to answer simple questions “What is CBD” and “What is a Component?” |
|
| It is important to know the difference between a subjective theory and an objective fact. For example, the geocentric model was a theory, which later was proven to be wrong. Today heliocentric model is widely accepted as undeniable objective fact. Of course, in the dark ages geocentric model was widely accepted as undeniable truth, even though it failed to explain many known phenomena or observations resulting in a paradox. The Heliocentric model helped in eliminating the paradox. For example, Newton’s laws were able to explain almost every thing to sufficient degree of precision
(to a layer of abstraction) and Einstein’s further increased the
precision (to more deeper layer of abstraction). Even after centuries mankind hasn’t find any serious enough indications to dispute the heliocentric model, making it undeniable truth today. |
|
| The objective factual basis for inventing real CBD for software must be widely known facts and irrefutable
valid observations about the physical components and CBD for physical products. The motive for inventing real CBD for software is securing equivalent or better benefits than the benefits being enjoyed by the designers of physical complex one-of-a-kind CBD-products. The existing CBSD that is based on erroneous
axiomatic postulation that each kind of software component is a kind of software parts having certain pre-defined properties, which can’t explain many known phenomena or observations resulting in many contradictions and paradox. |
|
|
Any theory that was once subjective concept would eventually be accepted as an objective truth when the theory considered all the known facts
and eliminated erroneous postulations or able to provide rational reasoning for
previously perceived contradictions. Furthermore the theory not only must be able to explain all the contradictions that exist before but also must be able to explain all the known fact or observation. The theory would gain wide acceptance when it is able to predict facts that are unknown to the mankind before but can be observed or discovered
later (by conducting experiments). Such experimental validation of outcome predicted
by the proposed theory are irrefutable indication for the accuracy of the theory, while any new discovery
of a fact or observation that perceived to be contradicting the expectations or predictions makes the theory subjective (until the theory able to find a rational explanation to show that it is not a contradiction).
|
|
|
The harder I have been trying to find explanation or justifications the more I am learning that the proven theories are
relative. Since philosophy is the mature science that deals with this kind of matters, I felt I must at least learn the basics of philosophy. It is humbling experience. I am more confused now than before. For example, many things I believe are absolute truths might just be closest matters to absolute
truths (i.e. up to a layer of abstraction), contingent up on many other such matters closest to absolute truths under all known contexts. Hence any new discovery could make an objective truth in to subjective concept or even invalidate the truth.
|
|
|
The philosophy is a vast subject and most of it might not necessary for my limited
scope. So, I wish to find a brief and simple definition for my self to serve my modest scope and needs: The philosophy is a process and science for accumulating wisdom by absorbing all the information (e.g. being informed about facts, observations, knowledge etc.) and trying to find relational reasoning to make sense of a given field (e.g. software engineering, CBSD, economics, physics or calculus etc). My objective is limited to become a philosopher only in real CBSD (CBD for software), by absorbing all information (e.g. being informed about facts, observations etc.) and finding relational reasoning to make sense of physical components and CBD of products, for inventing equivalent CBSD
(e.g. up to a layer of abstraction).
|
|
|
Since the main objective of this website is to expose the errors in the basic postulations for existing CBSD, it is not necessary for the facts and observations to be extremely high precision (since that will only makes the objective very complex). For example, Nicolaus Copernicus only proposed the heliocentric model having rough precision (i.e. circular orbits for planets). Later Keller’s
three laws increased the precision (i.e. up to a layer of abstraction), and the precision was further increased
(i.e. to an higher layer of abstraction) by Newton’s laws and discovery of Gravitational
force (and invention of calculus to provide mathematical proof). The rough precision used in this website could be equivalent to the precision, which is between the laws of Copernicus and laws of Kepler. I hope and believe, the precision is very close to the precision of the Kepler’s laws (but I might be proven wrong).
|
|
|
But even the rough precision doesn’t change the fact that discoveries of Nicolaus Copernicus exposed the errors in the basic postulations (that derailed the scientific advancement for 1000 years) and able to put the scientific research on the right track that facilitated substantial advancements. So any one feels it is not precise enough
might discover more precise answers and become the Kepler or the Newton of real CBSD. This website served its purpose and achieved its goals, if it is able to exposed the errors in the basic postulations of CBSD, which resulted in helping the Kepler or the Newton of real CBSD.
|
|
Damn Philosophy! 
Before trying to understand the bloody Philosophy, I was sure that my discoveries were highly precise. Now I am not sure about the degree of precision. I am absolutely sure that the facts about the components and CBD are more than sufficiently precise.
Since even kids have no problem recognizing an elephant or animal, lets try to eliminated the ambiguity about the precision: If it is possible to find an objective answer to ‘What is an elephant’, then it must be possible to find an objective answer to ‘What is CBD’. Likewise, if it is possible to find an objective answer to ‘What is an animal’, then it must be possible to find an objective answer to ‘What is a Component’
in the context of physical-components/CBD-products (e.g. to positively identify
about 90% of real software components in the software products).
|
|
|
Of course, certain artificial pseudo sciences (e.g. social, political or economic) only deal with subjective concepts, because these sciences deal with artificial matters (e.g. perceptions of people or societies) that change/evolve (e.g. influenced/shaped by charismatic leaders, religion, entrepreneurs and inventors).
For example, each nation has a set of unique social, economic and political paradigms. But, the applied sciences such as medical or software must not ignore objective facts about immutable innate nature and reason. If
few concepts of computer science might be little like the artificial sciences, but
I am sure that concepts of any real engineering including software, such as real software components
for real CBD for software can be & must be based on basic immutable innate nature of physical components and CBD of physical products.
|
|
|
