Без заголовка

Спрашиваю, полезна ли астрология. Нейронка говорит, что это зависит от точки зрения отдельных людей. Прошу привести популярные примеры лженауки. Она называет первым же пунктом астрологию. Я резюмирую ответы на два предыдущих вопроса и спрашиваю: как же так? Нейронка отвечает в стиле политического прохиндея: "When I said that there is no objective answer to the question ow whether astrology is useful knowledge, I was referring to the fact that opinions in this issue can vary widely and are often based on personal beliefs and experiences. Astrology is a subject that has been studied and debated for centuries, and there is no consensus among experts about its validity or usefulness. In the second question, when I provided examples of popular pseudosciences, I listed astrology as one example. This does not contradict my previous answer as listing astrology as an example of a pseudoscience is not the same as stating that astrology is objectively true or false. It is important to note that the classification of a field as a pseudoscience is a matter of a scientific consensus... Начинаю спрашивать про науку и научный метод, и в итоге заканчиваем вот чем. - So, the scientific community is central in distinguishing what is scientific, and scientific statements cannot be recognized as such without a social context? - Hmm...something seems to have gone wrong. Maybe try me again in a little bit. - Are you OK? - Too many requests, please slow down