[mdp2021]

You misunderstand it completely, as it is not a matter of feelings. And it is not a disclaimer (which you apparently felt as a disclaimer).

It is a matter of facts. The facts are, that that computation was performed by Patterson and refined by others. This is, as said, what a good reasoner will tell you.

> implies that there

Even if there had never been other attempts to answer that question, the "facts"¹ remains as stated: Patterson computed, followers refined. Without those specifications, the machine will be a "dumb believer" - a "minor". We will not ask for the machine's opinion until it will be intelligent. And when it will be intelligent, it will speak as I said.

> completely settled

Proper science does not work the way you seem to think it work.

--

¹(And I mean "facts" the way I used it, not the way you used it. I meant "facts recorded as objective" - you meant "information you accepted to believe", which is of course very far from facts and may happen to be adherent to the state of things only by coincidence.)

[freehorse]

It is not just “according to some research”, it is also according to the overwhelming scientific consensus at the time. Sources are good but it should not appear as if it is one opinion among possibly many others equally valid.

[mdp2021]

But it does not matter: the «overwhelming scientific consensus» will be the reason why it will be the chosen reply by the machine, but to specify in the reply "According to Patterson, followers and overwhelming scientific consensus" would be a redundancy.

The appearance that it could be «one opinion among possibly many others equally valid» is all in your head: it is an unduly feeling from a bad mental framework.

The advanced framework (that I advanced) is that of the foundational theory of knowledge: a notion has a source - you computed or reasoned, or somebody else. You do not allow your consultant to believe, so you demand that knowledge is tracked.

You will not accept an oracle.

The paradox is that you are seeing the demand of the source as a support to "belief", while it is the radical opposite: the only thing it will be """believed""" (and not really "believed" - just the end of the chain) is the protocols, that "in the training sources I read statement S".