Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

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".