fluidmosaic6 wrote:
>I think NAQT lends
itself to unpredictable results, with its tendency to
like questions about things there have never been
questions about before. Here's some scores from the mideast
one.
Implied here is the criticism that questions about things
that have never been asked about before is wrong, and
that unpredictability is inherently bad.
First,
tackling the criticism of asking about new things:
1)
What has been asked before isn't necessarily what
should be asked again, and sometimes shouldn't have been
asked about in the first place.
2) New information
constantly arises, which may be worth asking about.
3)
Not all areas of knowledge have been totally mined
for questions such that a never-before-asked answer
can be used.
4) In throwing out these once-asked
topics and trying not to rely on overasked answers, as
well, one must either live with a smaller set of
possible answers or have the vision to replace and renew
decaying and dying parts of the "canon," as much as there
actually exists one.
Message too long, continued in
the next post