There's a concept in science called "not even wrong." It was coined by physicist Wolfgang Pauli to describe arguments that are so vague, so poorly defined, that they can't even be tested or disproven.

A wrong statement is actually valuable — it means you've made a claim specific enough to be checked. "The Earth is 6,000 years old" is wrong, but at least it's a clear claim. You can investigate it and show why it's incorrect.

But "everything is connected" or "it's all about energy" — these sound profound but say nothing concrete. You can't prove them wrong because they don't actually claim anything specific.

In programming, I see this pattern too. Vague requirements, abstract architecture discussions that never get concrete, hand-wavy explanations that don't explain anything. The best code, like the best arguments, is specific enough to be wrong.

Being wrong is fine. Being "not even wrong" means you haven't really started thinking yet.

Further reading: Not even wrong (Wikipedia)