Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture
 =?UTF-8?B?ZGVzaWduZXI/?=
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:20:16 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <40853b34aae592d6cd8a19f017e3f7eb@www.novabbs.org>
References: <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me> <vcfopr$8glq$3@dont-email.me> <ll232oFs6asU1@mid.individual.net> <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me> <ll2n1hFu4lmU1@mid.individual.net> <vchu2q$mfu5$1@dont-email.me> <vchu67$mgk1$1@dont-email.me> <vcieqn$p8fv$1@dont-email.me> <AAfHO.23138$5837.19479@fx35.iad> <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vcpojl$2ads5$1@dont-email.me> <vct3av$2tic0$17@dont-email.me> <vctb0s$32gol$1@dont-email.me> <vctbo2$32cko$3@dont-email.me> <vcv711$3b4hf$1@dont-email.me> <vcvji5$3co45$7@dont-email.me> <20240925104320.00007791@yahoo.com> <vdaakm$1facd$4@dont-email.me> <vdacqq$1jf40$1@dont-email.me> <vdd6tv$23gqs$1@dont-email.me> <vdd8d6$23nsh$1@dont-email.me> <ee430ac27c829d5514d5652aa2c6fad6@www.novabbs.org> <vdevtm$2c7jg$1@dont-email.me> <vdg6fs$2ko7g$1@dont-email.me> <vdh5q8$2pnkp$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="136715"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="o5SwNDfMfYu6Mv4wwLiW6e/jbA93UAdzFodw5PEa6eU";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$7fQYMkE.bdEU7RFmhF1NGeokUZJ9SGU0MhFCLcH1rdzIhjjU0TXrG
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cb29269328a20fe5719ed6a1c397e21f651bda71
Bytes: 3969
Lines: 49

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:

> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
>
>> Science is not a religion.
>>
>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is
>> about unanswered questions.  Religion is about unquestioned answers."
>
> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed.
> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments
> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong).  You can never
> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it
> will gradually tend to become accepted.  In other words, you try
> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory
> is in trouble.
>
> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never
> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a
> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so
> people generally accept it.  But people still try to think of
> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying  for it.
>
> Same for quantum mechanics.  Whatever you think of it
> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate
> at predicting actual behavior.
>
> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way.

Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal
proofs.
>
> The main problem is with people who try to sell something as
> science which isn't, of which there are also many examples.

The colloquial person thinks theory and conjecture are
essentially equal. As in: "I just invented this theory".
No, you just: "Invented a conjecture." you have to have
substantial evidence to go from conjecture to theory.

> "Scientific Marxism" is one such example.  It is sometimes hard
> for an outsider to differentiate between actual scientific theories
> which have been tested, and people just claiming that "the science
> says so" when they have not been applying the scientific method
> faithfully, either through ignorance or through bad intent.
>
> There is also the problem of many people not knowing statistics well
> enough and misapplying it, for example in social or medical science.

Or politics....