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: <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240925104320.00007791@yahoo.com> 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 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....