Friday, November 22, 2013

What are the right processes for scientific research for acquiring knowledge and engineering research for inventing useful things?

When did the basic processes for scientific research of our software scientific field changed to this new scientific process of defining or dictating nature and characteristics (without any consideration of reality and no basis in scientific facts), from the old fashioned scientific process of discovering innate nature and essential characteristics or aspects of physical beings or phenomena respectively.

I am stuck in the belief that, places where one can get to do cool stuff like defining laws of nature is only in certain kind of books or movies, which are popularly known as science fiction. The writers of fiction get to define laws of nature to accomplish cool stuff like time-travel, cold-fusion or star-wars (without any basis or consideration of reality or scientific facts). It is cool if scientists could define or dictate nature, but I found no evidence that such baseless definitions ever resulted in tangible benefits or useful inventions.

I am stuck with old fashioned scientific process, and belief in the process of struggling to discover innate nature and essential aspects or characteristics of physical beings such as physical-components and physical phenomena such as CBD for physical products. If this were wrong, I wasted more than a decade of my life in this foolish pursuit of scientific research for discovering facts and engineering research for using the facts to invent real-software-components for real-CBSD.

I am still stuck in old fashioned belief: (1) The purpose of scientific research is to discover facts for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge, and (2) the purpose of engineering research is to invent and build useful things by relying on the facts. The software researchers skipped the step-1 by defining the laws of nature (e.g. essential characteristics of components and essential aspects of CBD) and trying to invent useful things by relying on the definitions (having no basis in fact or reality).

If I am wrong, I wasted only my time of over 10 years and money from my family savings so far. If the researchers were wrong, mankind already lost many decades of scientific progress (at a cost of trillions in lost opportunities). For example, tax-payer funded research institutions such as SEI at CMU and SDP at NITRD has been wasting billions and sadly defending status-quo (which would cost hundreds of billions each year in lost opportunity costs) at the expense of tax-payers.

I have tried my best to inform the accomplished researchers at those respected organizations about my research results, but I was unable to get their attention. I tried to openly post in the blogs of SEI researchers, but moderators refuse to accept inconvenient facts. For example, I humbly requested the researchers to explain the baseless definitions and resulting contradictions (by relying on facts). I telephoned, but unable to get even an opportunity to explain my side.

If any one thinks I am foolish or crazy, of course feeling is mutual because: I openly provided all the evidence and willing defend only by relying on facts, while many experts refused to explain and ignoring obvious contradictions and errors (e.g. by using silly excuses such as software is different without explain why and in what manner software is different).

After exhausting all reasonable ways, I decided to write an open letter and inform the respected researchers by email and phone about the open letter hosted in our website at:  

No comments:

Post a Comment