[FRIAM] "rational" discussion

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Sites like that always seem susceptible to myopia or tunnel vision.  I'm th[ia]nking e.g. Stanley's "Myth of the Objective" and the (notorious) failures in early genetic algorithm fitness functions ... etc.  The best part of collaborative filtering is the exploration it enables, not the convergence onto a truth or answer.  For that, Kialo's "possible duplicate claims" might be useful ... but perhaps no more useful than permuting one's Google queries on a regular basis.

I suppose it's reasonable to think that anyone focused on "rational" discussion would be similarly enthralled by The Truth or objective, however ill-formed.  But I tend to think of "rational" as the ability to re-ration at will, not as the desire to pick a particular rationing and write it in stone forever.  So, Kialo's voting/tallying thing seems to be yet another way to poll for opinions.  ... maybe or maybe not [†] a *better* way to poll  but nonetheless a poll ... and on the internet even.

[†] My guess is there are those who will/do play the Kialo game enough to become true gamers and guide the collaborative decision making to their desired conclusion.

On 11/28/18 9:34 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> for Nick, who is constantly interested in the feasibility of such things:  https://www.kialo.com/


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ