Kulindahr, there is something in the nature of a guess which might be described as "non-factual" or "subjective."
Science is the process of "panning for knowledge" in a shovelful of guesses dredged up from the river bottom.
Ooh! "Panning for knowledge" -- superb turn of phrase!
Reminds me of a session in botany where we had bumped into a big question and did a brainstorming session. Every guess was listed, no matter how inane -- that would be scooping from the bottom. Then we went back through to decide which might be testable -- that would be the rough sort. Testing would be parallel to panning out the real stuff.
The non-factuality and the subjectiveness are not kept; science is the very act of discarding these things. It means the end result does not somehow encapsulate subjectivity. To the degree to which any subjectivity remains in the "final" result, science proposes an iterative process of re-refinement.
As an alternate to guessing, we might construct hypotheses with a machine designed to randomise associations between variables. Eating more cheese sandwiches will result in an improved ability to tan. Placing a bagel underneath a bridge in Prague will result in reduced sunspot activity. Everyone engaging in square dance will control inflation.
Everyone in California having sex all at once will cause "the big one".
The iterative process is wonderful. In those areas where experimentation and reproducibility don't apply, it's all there is: repeated observations of phenomena, then hoping circumstances provide a chance to test them (a reason why every last glacier in a large area of Scandinavia has a large array of sensors, as the glaciologists wait for one to gallop, or surge, or whatever, so they can test their latest ideas).
Unfortunately, theology can't be iterative in that sense. We effectively have one data set, which some argue isn't even dependable.
A machine can come up with any number of random associations between variables. Empirical evidence can help us winnow down from associations to correlations. And we now have the basis for experiments in biology, astronomy, and economics, to establish or reject causality.
Or is it gastronomy, geomancy, and monotony?
Monotony, monogamy -- whatever.
Either way, a guess is not required to kick the process off. I'll remark on the educated guess at this point; the term is redundant. All guesses are educated guesses; this process of idle speculation and iterative consideration of the likeliness of causality occurs before we declare ourselves to have "guessed."
Those random associations you propose having a computer do
are guesses. Guesses are essentially grabbing at some association we have no clue about as far as it being sound. Sure, we have a "reasonability" circuit that cuts out a lot of what the computer would generate, so what we actually put forth is somewhat limited, but they're still guesses.
BTW, I've heard a fair number of non-educated guesses. They're exceptionally common in the area of economoics and what the government can do to "fix" things.
That is not the same as being able to feel certain of something without having gone through the exercise of separating the deceptively convincing falsehoods from something verifiable.
I do consider the work of theologians to be within this paradigm rather than outside it. I just consider their theories to have been long surpassed by the processes described.
Surpassed how? Science provides little data for theologians, though it certainly has provided substantial amounts for making sense of certain sections of the Bible.
