AgnosticBoy
Open-minded Skeptic
In some cases, I have taken a scientific rigid approach to your system, but I am also open to using non-scientific means to discover things. BUT, it depends on the subject matter and the potential value (and i don't mean monetary - but more like advance in understanding, discovering something new, etc.), and yes, some personal necessity.
Let's take history for example. I accept using a less scientific or even a non-scientific approach because the subject matter requires that. We obviously can't do scientific testing on much of the historical events from the past and so we're often left going on what historians wrote down. Why do historians and even skeptics accept that standard? I think the main reason is because there is value in history - we know it existed and a lot of things from it are necessary to know to help us understand where we are now. So really there's value and some necessity (lots of need to know stuff) to it, and the alternative is ignoring much of history which would be a very dumb idea.
Now to apply this back to your system. I have to ask, is the subject matter something that can be assessed using science? Or is it something that we have treat a little differently as we would when dealing with history? You've eloquently answered that in your last post, but I'm still not convinced either way. So I've tried to get there resigning to not using scientific means) by weighing what value is added, and for now, I don't see enough from my personal look at it. The messages don't add anything useful enough for me, and that's on top of other doubts/uncertainties that I have. Others might see it differently.
For the record, this is the type of value I'm looking for...
Let's take history for example. I accept using a less scientific or even a non-scientific approach because the subject matter requires that. We obviously can't do scientific testing on much of the historical events from the past and so we're often left going on what historians wrote down. Why do historians and even skeptics accept that standard? I think the main reason is because there is value in history - we know it existed and a lot of things from it are necessary to know to help us understand where we are now. So really there's value and some necessity (lots of need to know stuff) to it, and the alternative is ignoring much of history which would be a very dumb idea.
Now to apply this back to your system. I have to ask, is the subject matter something that can be assessed using science? Or is it something that we have treat a little differently as we would when dealing with history? You've eloquently answered that in your last post, but I'm still not convinced either way. So I've tried to get there resigning to not using scientific means) by weighing what value is added, and for now, I don't see enough from my personal look at it. The messages don't add anything useful enough for me, and that's on top of other doubts/uncertainties that I have. Others might see it differently.
For the record, this is the type of value I'm looking for...
2. If the generated responses were answers to questions,
Last edited: