Lets play a little game.
www2.open.ac.uk/openlearn/philos … -sea.html#
Results after?
Kriswest, I agreed with the blackbird more than the robin and got almost the same philosophers listed as agreeing/disagreeing with me 
I forgot to post my results though, will re-do it and post them later.
Artimas, what about you?
Welll, there are limited names to toss about and the possible answers even more so.
Given a broader range of options the results should be different, especially given the vague description of my results… I actually got the idea the whole thing was more of an advertisement for the site. Bait, then reel them in.
And how does it match up to you?
Matches up pretty good for me.
www2.open.ac.uk/openlearn/philos … k.1g.38.3z
was about right.
So what do you want to discuss about this???
I wanted to see its accuracy and who people would get is all.
it seemed to have somewhat limited outcomes. those topics could have been broadened to a far more comprehensive degree surely? and how much ambiguity is really needed, if any?
I agree. They are not very descriptive or unique.
I also saw that on a few occasions i was forced to take/make an answer/route i had previously not taken, so an answer i was formerly against. This is natural in the sense that one is taken on routes in life whereby we reinterpret former situations and re-evaluate old ideas. It is not natural nor correct when we come to the same conclusion as we did before, but after re-evaluation, and yet still have to take a different path [that of the wrong/alt choice].
My results were the same I think, not sure about the rationality thing with Max Weber… tbh I didn’t quite understand it when I was playing the game either, the example seemed stupid to me.