The three layers (i.e. science, engineering and art) for invention and innovation of each of the products.

The progress of pure science is discovering new truths (or irrefutable facts) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. The scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truth. The scientific foundation comprises of irrefutable scientific facts/truths, and well tested/proven theories/concepts created by using sound reasoning, logic, which are further supported by empirical evidence (e.g. repeatable experiments). The scientists propose falsifiable hypotheses and each of the hypotheses is tested against whole world of known/recorded facts, observations to falsify the hypothesis. Any falsifiable theory/concept is not false, but it can be falsified, if it has flaw. Any hypothesis is eventually accepted as a proven theory or concept, when no flaw can be found.

The pure engineering is inventing (and/or innovating) useful things (e.g. parts, and engineering infrastructure such as tools, processes, models) by relying on the sound scientific foundation. The components such as internal combustion engine, Jet-engine, CPU, DRAM or parts for fiber optic networks are pure engineering inventions. Likewise, ingredient parts such as steel, plastic, gasoline, cement, battery-parts and metals or alloys) are pure engineering inventions. These kinds of things are continuously optimizer for sheer engineering perfection, performance and precision. So such things begin as pure engineering inventions and continuously evolved by mostly pure engineering innovations.

Even an ugly looking compact internal combustion engine looks beautify and gains admiration, if it is two times more fuel efficient at lower price. No one cares the looks of CPU, DRAM or parts for fiber optic networks, if they are 2-times better than nearest competition in tangible aspects such as price & performance. The research effort and process for inventing or innovating each of the engineering things must rely on a set of scientific facts or concepts, and the research effort would fail, if there are flaws in the scientific facts and concepts.

These kinds of engineering things are used to create products used by human beings (e.g. consumer products or products that are used by engineers). The architects and designers of such products employ engineering and art (e.g. to suite taste or preferences of target users) to innovate user friendly products (e.g. Cell-phones, PCs, TVs, iPod, Twitter, Whatsapp or Facebook etc.), by relying on the things invented and innovated by employing pure engineering (where the engineering progress was possible only due to relying on sound scientific foundation). Although only the art is visible and makes competitive deference in consumer products such as iPhone or Facebook, there is lot of invisible science and engineering goes into each of the products.

Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are Steven Spielberg’s of technology industry – Great story tellers - know what users or consumers want better than the consumers themselves. There could be dozens of companies who has engineering capability to build products such as iPhone or Facebook, but can’t deliver on artistic taste (or creativity) and understanding of consumer intuition (or fascination). They have great intuition, taste or charisma to capture our imagination/fantasy. All the other competing companies have access to same engineering and scientific knowledge, the inventors and innovators of consumer products succeed by heavily relying on intangible artistic taste and creativity for differentiating from competition. Even if they encounter few technological shortcomings to achieve envisioned perfection, I am sure most other competing companies could overcome the shortcomings (if confronted with the same technological shortcomings).

My objectives: (1) expanding boundaries of mankind's scientific knowledge by discovering unknown facts about the physical functional components and CBD for physical products, and doing engineering research (by leveraging the existing and newly discovered scientific facts) (2) to invent new useful things such as new kind of component models and processes, and (3) inventing basic missing pieces for software engineers such as CASE-tools & reusable libraries.

Each of the successful products used by mankind is blend of the three ingredients (i) scientific discoveries, (ii) engineering inventions and (iii) art (artistic imagination) or taste (tasteful design). In the layer-1 (scientific research), absolutely there is no room for subjectivity. In the layer-2 (scientific research), there may be room for small percent of subjectivity. The joy of pure engineering is creating best algorithms such as compression, clustering and encryption or decryption, which are tangible and can be measured against alternative inventions in key performance aspects. In the layer-3 (research for products such as tools and libraries for engineers) there is lot of room for intangible subjectivity and artistic creativity (e.g. each set of consumers might like a different version of the same product invention). There could be multiple winners, since there is a room for subjectivity.

Each of the successful products used by mankind is blend of the three ingredients (i) scientific discoveries, (ii) engineering inventions and (iii) art (artistic imagination) or taste (tasteful design). One must be clear in which layer (i.e. ingredient) one is focusing, when one is doing research. Likewise, one must be clear which layer is the contest, if one is discussing or debating. In the layer-1, goal is to discover the facts that are closer to absolute truth (e.g. compared to competition). One can invent (or innovate) better engineering things by relying on better facts. In layer-3, there is lot of room for subjectivity, so whoever predicts the user taste/needs (e.g. by fulfilling user imagination/fascinations) wins.

The inventions & innovations of engineering (i.e. layer-2) can be expanded by expanding the boundaries human knowledge in layer-1, for example, by discovering new scientific facts. The expansions of layer-2 allow expansion of layer-3, for example, resulting in inventions of new products and innovations in existing products. The scientific and engineering progress would certainly derails and end up in crisis, if there are errors in mankind’s knowledge in layer-1. That is, expanding the layer-1 leads to expanding layer-2 (invention of new things and drastic improvements to the performance of existing things), and expanding the layer-2 leads to expanding the layer-3 (i.e. invention of new kind of products and drastic improvements to existing products).

There are huge gaps in the layer-1 (i.e. in computer science) such as fundamental flaws in the basic axioms and concepts that are foundation for existing software engineering paradigm. The software engineering ended up in crisis because it has been evolving for nearly 5 decades by relying on such flawed concepts (by assuming them to be facts). These flaws are buried deeply under a thick layer of hundreds of books and thousands of research articles published world over spanning 50 years and made invisible by resulted distortion of reality and a complex paradoxical paradigm.

How could mankind invent computer chips by being clueless about the essential properties of electrons, such as how they behave in semi-conductor material? How could mankind invent fiber-optic networks by being clueless about essential properties of light, such as how it behaves in strands of optical-fibers? Likewise, mankind can’t invent real CBD for software by being clueless about essential properties of physical components and essential aspects of real CBD for the physical products, since the essential properties enable the components to achieve the real CBD having the essential aspects (e.g. 0% spaghetti code).

The order of product creation is (i) discovering the scientific reality and facts, (ii) use the knowledge of the facts and reality to make engineering inventions, and (iii) The products are created by using the engineering knowledge and expertise. But computer science defined the nature of components (and aspects of CBD for software) without any basis in reality (or fact), and researchers of software engineering have been trying to invent CBD for software for nearly half-a-decade by relying on erroneous scientific foundation. Trying to invent engineering before science is like putting cart before horse - it never works. This passionate effort of thousands of researchers spanning over 50 years resulted in evolution of a complex paradoxical paradigm. This is no different from trying to advance the scientific knowledge for 1000 years, by relying on the erroneous fact that the Earth is static at the center, which resulted in evolution of a paradoxical paradigm that was so complex that even saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” 500 years ago offended the common sense and insulted the deeply entrenched conventional wisdom (of then prevailing geocentric paradigm).

My request is just discover the scientific truths (E.g. essential aspects of real CBD of physical products and the essential properties of physical functional components that are enabling them to achieve the real CBD of physical products). Then rely on the scientific foundation (of truths) to invent equivalent real software components for achieving real CBSD (CBD for Software) having the essential aspects. Each of the definitions for each of the kinds of software components known today has no basis in reality, so it is a huge violation of scientific process to blindly rely on such software components for inventing CBSD.