I agree with this. I think that’s one of the reasons why it’s so important to have discussion in the comments to a post be as unconstrained as possible—so that ideas can be developed, the best versions of them discovered (or constructed).
Not only in comments; some ideas are better tested by trying to apply or build on them, rather than just discussing theoretically. It does produce a body of work to reevaluate, though, so those posts should indicate the premises somehow.
Totally agreed. (Ideally, we’d see something like: a post that says “I have an idea, how can I test it? I’m thinking I can try X” [and then the commenters might add Y and Z as additional suggestions for testing] → (the OP and/or other people go and test the idea) → one or more posts that say “I did X Y Z to test that idea, here’s what I observed” [and then there’s discussion] → (rinse, repeat). That’s not necessarily a formal procedure, but something like this cycle happening on a regular basis, with ongoing integration of the learnings from each iteration, would definitely be what we’d want to see, if our interest lies in useful ideas about the real world.)
Not only in comments; some ideas are better tested by trying to apply or build on them, rather than just discussing theoretically. It does produce a body of work to reevaluate, though, so those posts should indicate the premises somehow.
Totally agreed. (Ideally, we’d see something like: a post that says “I have an idea, how can I test it? I’m thinking I can try X” [and then the commenters might add Y and Z as additional suggestions for testing] → (the OP and/or other people go and test the idea) → one or more posts that say “I did X Y Z to test that idea, here’s what I observed” [and then there’s discussion] → (rinse, repeat). That’s not necessarily a formal procedure, but something like this cycle happening on a regular basis, with ongoing integration of the learnings from each iteration, would definitely be what we’d want to see, if our interest lies in useful ideas about the real world.)