Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 08:50:06 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vdiqev$34tqa$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <eef41ee7c5ed124a19f0f849f1bf2206@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:50:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c42395f5fe3fe419d34db268459be31b";
	logging-data="3307338"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182SYUxoKmlqUeZw7C0QhyCZKpGHZ85BwU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o1MFEkUE8g25yMSfpLbSJ7ysHq4=
In-Reply-To: <eef41ee7c5ed124a19f0f849f1bf2206@www.novabbs.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3955

On 01/10/2024 23:11, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:56:46 +0000, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> On 01/10/2024 20:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

>>>
>>> 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.
> 

I read your post as saying that if someone says "I have a theory that 
the moon is made of green cheese", it is actually a conjecture, not a 
theory.  I fully agree that it is not a theory - at least, not a 
scientific theory.  But I would also not even call it a conjecture since 
it is has no justification or basis, and is easily disproved (if the 
moon is made of cheese, it is /grey/ cheese, not /green/ cheese!).  It 
is no more than an idea or claim - to be a "conjecture", it needs to 
have a viable path towards a theory (though it may fail along that path).

But we absolutely agree on "theory".

The issue turns up regularly with Bible literalists who think the theory 
of evolution is "just a theory", and should have no more place in school 
curriculums than the so-called "theory of intelligent design".   They 
are mixing up the scientific term "theory" with the colloquial 
non-scientific usage - and the same bad reasoning suggests that 
alongside the "Newtonian theory of gravity" we should be teaching the 
"theory of intelligent falling".