Componentology is a newly established scientific discipline dedicated to the comprehensive study of the reality of physical components and parts—including their nature, essential properties, and intrinsic characteristics. It encompasses the anatomy, structure, design, and construction of physical Component-Based Products (CBPs), as well as the methods and mechanisms underpinning real Component-Based Engineering (CBE).
A discipline qualifies as a hard science if, and only if, it systematically investigates physical phenomena—i.e., real-world entities and processes that cannot defy the laws of nature or physics—and builds its Body of Knowledge (BoK) through the rigorous application of the scientific method. Each piece of knowledge in such a BoK must be objectively discovered, validated, and accumulated in accordance with empirical and methodological rigor.
Just as zoology is the scientific study of animals, botany of plants, and chemistry of matter, elements, and compounds, Componentology is the scientific study of physical components and parts, the anatomy and construction of CBPs, and all aspects of real CBE. It is a new branch of hard science rooted in the objective, evidence-based study of components as foundational building blocks of engineered systems.
A cornerstone of scientific understanding, documentation, and communication in any discipline is the development of classification systems and nomenclature. For example, biological sciences use taxonomic classification to systematically study species of plants and animals—employing precisely defined terminology and well-structured vocabulary to organize and communicate knowledge. Likewise, chemistry classifies substances into groups such as organic, inorganic, acids, and bases, and arranges elements in the periodic table based on atomic structure and behavior.
In Componentology, as in other hard sciences, systematic classification and precise terminology are essential. They not only enable unambiguous understanding but are also critical for accurate documentation, reproducibility, and clear communication. The absence of such clarity would lead to misinterpretations, subjective ambiguity, and the erosion of scientific objectivity. Thus, the classification of component species and standardized nomenclature form the bedrock of Componentology's scientific methodology.
We have publicly challenged hundreds of software engineering researchers to identify even a single significant work—whether a peer-reviewed research paper, academic textbook, or widely accepted software component model (such as those developed by Grady Booch or implemented in tools like Rational Rose)—that is not rooted in pseudoscientific misconceptions about fictitious entities misleadingly or deceptively referred to as components. Despite the widespread acceptance of these misconceptions within the mainstream paradigm, none of these works has withstood scrutiny when evaluated against objective scientific standards.
To date, no researcher has presented verifiable evidence demonstrating that any concept of value—whether theories, methods, descriptions, or explanations—within the existing theoretical foundations of Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE) meets the criteria to qualify as scientific. This persistent silence, often accompanied by evasive tactics or ad hominem attacks, underscores the urgent need to challenge and expose the prevailing pseudoscientific dogma. Componentology has been developed precisely to meet this need, offering a scientifically grounded alternative to replace the prevailing pseudoscientific paradigm that underlies CBSE.
Components are the lifeblood and backbone of the modern industrial age, serving as the essential building blocks for designing and constructing large, complex products such as airplanes, automobiles, and computers. The progress and productivity of the industrial era would be unimaginable without components—a special class of parts designed for assembly, and disassembly. They form the basis of countless component-based inventions and innovations that have profoundly shaped industry and society. Given their central role, it is imperative to systematically study components through a scientific lens.
To create virtual counterparts of physical components in software, we must first understand their nature, structure, and functional role. Such scientific understanding and insight, developed through Componentology, is essential for replicating their advantages in the digital realm and catalyzing a new wave of innovation. Our goal is to ignite a similar revolution in software engineering by inventing real software components—true equivalents of physical components—and using them to build Component-Based Products (CBPs) that are anatomically and structurally analogous to their physical counterparts.
It is indisputable that it is impossible to address any scientific or engineering problem by relying on biased & flawed assumptions, myths, and misconceptions. Sadly, software engineering committed this fatal mistake of relying on 55-year-old flawed assumptions and myths (i.e., about so-called software components and CBE) to address problems such as the software crisis. We decided to create “Componentology” since it is impossible to address this fatal mistake (of the creation of a flawed paradigm) without acquiring and relying on valid scientific understanding, descriptions, and insights.
The foundational assumptions of software engineering were broadly defined during the 1968 and 1969 NATO Software Engineering Conferences—and they are fundamentally flawed. Since then, the field has been built upon these flawed assumptions, giving rise to widespread misconceptions and distorted perceptions—akin to the epicycles and retrograde motions of pre-Copernican astronomy—particularly concerning so-called software components, CBPs, and CBE. These foundational errors and their resulting distortions have directly contributed to the enduring software crisis. Upon recognizing the deep-rooted misconceptions embedded in the theoretical foundation, we chose not to follow the profoundly distorted perceptions. Instead, we established a new branch of science—Componentology—to address software problems through scientific understanding and empirically grounded insights.
It is well-recognized that engineering research must be grounded in scientific knowledge, understanding, and insights—particularly in this case, concerning real components, real CBPs, and the authentic CBE paradigm. It must not rely on misconceptions embedded in distorted perceptions of reality surrounding so-called software components and the pseudo–CBE paradigm. Conducting engineering research on the basis of such biases and misconceptions is a fundamental error and stands in direct violation of the most basic principles of sound engineering practice.
It is not disrespectful to humbly request that engineering researchers rely on science rather than mythology. Unfortunately, the software community is offended by our advocacy of acquiring and utilizing scientific knowledge and understanding (i.e. Componentology) rather than relying on 55-year-old flawed pre-paradigmatic assumptions (i.e. myths about so-called components and Component-Based Products) when conducting engineering research for Component-Based Engineering of software.
It is impossible to solve the infamous software crisis and the dreadful problem of spaghetti code without the scientific and theoretical foundation that only “Componentology” can provide. "Componentology" and associated nomenclature is the only scholarly way for scientists and researchers to engage in scientific discourse, and valid observations & evidence accumulated through it should be used to support their assertions. I am confident that “Componentology” opens the door for inventions and innovations of new kinds of useful parts and components, as well as methods and mechanisms for utilizing them to build software products, which together will usher in a software revolution.
Any discipline of science or engineering will inevitably end up in a crisis (resulting in an illusion or paradox) if it uses and relies on flawed assumptions (e.g., Earth is at the center) as core first principles. It is basic common sense that it is impossible to address any technological problem without using and relying on valid scientific knowledge. If valid scientific knowledge which is necessary for addressing a problem is not already available, it is impossible to address the problem without acquiring valid scientific knowledge.
To address one of the greatest technological challenges, known as the software crisis, which has been eluding the greatest minds of software for decades, would you rather rely on scientific knowledge, such as Componentology, or on 55-year-old biased assumptions and misconceptions about so-called software components, where the biased assumptions and misconceptions created the software crisis in the first place?
If botany did not exist and understanding trees was essential, creating the discipline of botany would be a natural course of action. Likewise, if bacteriology were absent and comprehending bacteria was critical, establishing bacteriology would be entirely logical. In the same spirit, recognizing the absence of Componentology—and its essential role in identifying and correcting misconceptions in software—we took the initiative to create this scientific discipline, along with its foundational nomenclature to document and communicate scientific knowledge.
Knowledge of zoology, comprising descriptions, theories, and understanding, must be consistent with observations and evidence about animals. Similarly, knowledge of botany must be consistent with observations and evidence about trees. Likewise, knowledge of Componentology must be consistent with observations and evidence about components and CBE. However, prevailing descriptions, theories, and understanding of components, CBPs, and CBE contradict observations and evidence about them, making them invalid and an illusion.
Scientific evidence and objective observations accumulated for Componentology conclusively prove that the prevailing dominant paradigm (e.g., comprising descriptions, concepts, and understandings of components, CBPs, and CBE) is an illusion and mythology. For engineering research to address technological problems such as spaghetti code or the software crisis, it is common sense to rely on science rather than mythology, particularly if mythology is responsible for creating the problems.
Componentology must be established as the foundational theoretical framework for software engineering research, as there currently exists no rigorous scientific study of real components or CBEs. What is presently known, taught in academic institutions, and widely relied upon regarding software components and CBE is fundamentally flawed—an illusion comparable to the 16th-century geocentric model.
Componentology represents a paradigm-shifting scientific reality, akin to the heliocentric model that supplanted the geocentric illusion. Like heliocentrism, it challenges long-entrenched misconceptions and threatens the dominant orthodoxy. Consequently, Componentology has become a scientific “hot potato”—so profoundly discomforting that even those with legal and ethical obligations to confront it refuse to engage.
Today, pseudoscientific nonsense surrounding so-called software components, CBPs, and CBEs is widely promoted to the public and taught to impressionable computer science students under the guise of legitimate science. The most effective way to expose this pervasive pseudoscientific hokum is by developing genuine science (e.g., Booklet on Componentology) firmly grounded in well-established scientific principles. Only through this rigorous approach can we achieve objective understanding and establish a valid theoretical foundation vital for successfully conducting applied research.
Humanity’s understanding of trees—or bacteria—would be reduced to pseudoscientific conjecture in the absence of a dedicated scientific discipline such as botany or bacteriology, or if the prevailing theories and descriptions failed to align with empirical evidence and observable reality. Similarly, without a formal scientific discipline devoted to the study of components, CBPs, and CBE, any purported knowledge—whether in the form of descriptions, explanations, methods, concepts, or theories—must be regarded as pseudoscientific. The widespread proliferation of flawed assumptions, misconceptions, and myths surrounding components, CBPs, and CBE only underscores the critical absence of a formal science—namely, Componentology—dedicated to developing a valid, evidence-based understanding of these essential entities.
What is most disheartening is that it is not only religious zealots or ideological extremists who cling to entrenched beliefs and dogmas; many researchers and scientists in software engineering and computer science exhibit a comparable resistance to change. Far too often, they vigorously defend orthodoxies and pseudoscientific hokum with a fervor reminiscent of religious fundamentalism. This uncritical adherence—particularly when exhibited by entrenched ideologues serving as reviewers and gatekeepers of scientific discourse—has become a serious impediment to progress. Such deplorable fanaticism and the unethical defence of myths not only stifle innovation but also sabotage credible evidence supporting dissenting insights. As a result, they actively obstruct legitimate, paradigm-challenging discoveries such as the objective reality of Componentology, which directly confronts and exposes the deeply flawed theoretical foundations that continue to dominate the field.
The existing pseudoscientific theoretical foundation is zealously defended by rigid, anti-scientific fanatics. Engaging in productive or meaningful discourse with such individuals is virtually impossible, as they show no regard for valid, verifiable, and reproducible evidence. Their dogmatic resistance to empirical truth, coupled with a fanatical contempt for objective evidence, renders them indistinguishable from ideological extremists or bigots. Even more troubling, their entrenched influence—often wielded from positions of authority—and their systematic abuse of power continue to obstruct the pursuit and advancement of genuine scientific inquiry essential for gaining valid evidence-based objective understanding.
The widely prevalent voodoo science has cost trillions to the global economy and has contributed to hundreds of deaths or injuries to consumers. If Fake Scientists spreading Pseudoscientific hokum are not exposed, it will cause many more fatalities. Everyone has the right and freedom to contribute to science, including non-whites, without violating established scientific principles. The scientific method does not reserve any special rights or privileges for any particular race to create a new branch of science, even if many racists (e.g., at NSF.gov, ACM.org, or IEEE.org) disagree. When clear evidence is provided, it is unethical, immoral, and illegal in civilized nations to suppress it and continue to justify or contribute to the spread of voodoo science. If it can cause death or injury, it is a violation of consumer product safety laws to spread voodoo science, even after being informed.
Anti-scientific fanatics—akin to dogmatic bigots—are defined by their unapologetic rejection of valid, reproducible evidence that challenges their entrenched biases and misconceptions. In their efforts to preserve the prevailing illusory paradigm, they dismiss foundational scientific principles, elevating authority and mob consensus above objective reality and its verifiable truths. As Galileo warned, "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox"—a timeless truth that has endured through the ages. Without their denial of scientific principles and suppression of evidence, the illusory pseudoscientific paradigm would collapse under the weight of truths (of objective reality).
Throughout history, nearly every paradigm-challenging discovery has desperately sought institutional validation—especially when confronted with ad hominem attacks and redicule from entrenched interests and ideological zealots. Yet today, the very institutions that present themselves as custodians of scientific integrity and stewards of progress—pledging to provide the long-overdue and desperately needed institutional validation for such breakthroughs—have, in practice, become the primary saboteurs of scientific advancement. Rather than upholding the principles of open inquiry, they systematically undermine empirical challenges that threaten established orthodoxy, thereby betraying the foundational values they claim to uphold.
Forgive my bluntness, but what else can one reasonably call scientists who reject solid empirical evidence capable of dismantling deeply entrenched pseudoscientific dogma? I consider them anti-scientific zealots. Is there a more fitting term for a so-called scientist who stubbornly clings to dogma—even when confronted with irrefutable and reproducible evidence? Tragically, institutions that once professed to be stewards of scientific progress—such as NSF.gov, ACM.org, and IEEE.org—now lend legitimacy to such fanaticism by actively enabling the suppression of indisputable empirical evidence.
Organizations that brand themselves as stewards of science—such as NSF.gov, ACM.org, and IEEE.org—have increasingly morphed into defenders of orthodoxy, zealously shielding pseudoscientific dogma while marginalizing empirical challenges that threaten their authority. Much like the Church during Galileo’s era, these institutions—despite their professed commitment to scientific principles, integrity, and ethics—now function more like inquisitors, abusing their power and position to suppress inconvenient truths and persecute those who dare to advance verifiable, reproducible evidence that challenges and exposes their deeply entrenched dogmatic illusions.