Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 08:57:00 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vdg6fs$2ko7g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me>
 <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org>
 <2024Sep18.074007@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcds4i$3vato$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Sep18.220953@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:57:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="19df7e742d7b3602092eff19a02c8964";
	logging-data="2777328"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UQNqHKePlWQZGfJRBqcA7GSrfc41frVM="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9jo/uTZLwROuENJaMXLZoKBMCbM=
In-Reply-To: <vdevtm$2c7jg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4140

On 30/09/2024 21:58, Brett wrote:
> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 4:11:18 +0000, Brett wrote:
>>>
>>> Based off of Hubble research 1000’s of theories were proposed to get a
>>> Nobel prize, then the James Web telescope launched and all those
>>> theories went into the toilet.
>>>
>>> Had one of those theories been in the ball park you would have declared
>>> success for predictive science. Ignoring the 999 failures, but
>>> “science”completely failed.
>>
>> just because there were thousands of conjectures that fail to meet the
>> rigors of science does not mean that science has failed.
> 
> The false religion of “science” failed.
> 

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."

"Science does not know everything.  Science /knows/ it does not know 
everything - otherwise we'd stop doing it."  (That was Dara Ó Briain.)

> Yes real science actually advances this way.
> 

It's apparent from your postings that you have no concept of what "real 
science" is, or how it advances.

You look at modern science, and you see there are gaps - things that no 
one is explaining properly.  The scientific approach is to look at these 
holes and see opportunities to learn more and fill them in.  Perhaps 
someone will fulfil the dream of all scientists, and prove an existing 
theory wrong.

But your anti-scientific approach is to see these gaps or flaws and 
think that means scientists are lying to us, or that it's /all/ wrong. 
Then you listen to the first crackpot trisectors or conman that comes 
along, and happily give them your worship and your money just because 
they re-enforce your paranoia.

It is flat-earthers like you that make it very difficult for real 
scientists who do come up with unusual ideas - they are brought low by 
the weight of supporters like you who follow them simply because their 
ideas are different, not because they understand the science involved.