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 21:11:12 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <eef41ee7c5ed124a19f0f849f1bf2206@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> <40853b34aae592d6cd8a19f017e3f7eb@www.novabbs.org> <vdhgle$2rium$1@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="154438"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="o5SwNDfMfYu6Mv4wwLiW6e/jbA93UAdzFodw5PEa6eU";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cb29269328a20fe5719ed6a1c397e21f651bda71
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$xD2D/QWrqWXfY8RiIc0leO9iYrCuwwE9Ma4v01wakHRNpSRuKeO1y
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4932
Lines: 68

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:56:46 +0000, David Brown wrote:

> On 01/10/2024 20:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's worth remembering that mathematical proofs always start at a base -
> a set of axioms.  And these axioms are assumed, not proven.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I think you need evidence, justification, and a good basis for proposing
> something before it can even be called a "conjecture" in science.  You
> don't start off with a conjecture - you start with an idea, and have a
> long way to go to reach a "scientific theory", passing through
> "conjecture" and "hypothesis" on the way.

I do not disagree with that. Sorry if I implied anything else.

>>> "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....
>
> Or even in hard sciences - scientists are humans too, and some of them
> get their statistics wildly wrong.