Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK

[Iwannaplato]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rating things btw, but it goes both ways. I'll give VA's philosophy say a 3/10, where I would consider 7.5/10 as "good". After years of hard work he hasn't managed to improve at all on that score imo.

Yes, if we ran it through that list of criteria he uses to justify FSKs it would be very hard to pin down a number, but it would also be very hard for VA to object to, for example, your assessment.

The above can be done easily in an objective manner.

First state all the rules.
List down the list of criteria and weightages for acceptance by all members.
Based on the criteria, explain what comprised of the ideal standard at 10/10.
E.g. the criteria to be accepted could be, say,
1. The scope, range of philosophy covered, e.g. Eastern, Western, etc.
2. The subjects covered within 1 above.
3. Number of philosophical books read, incl. the critical texts.
4. Test scores taken at regular periods.
5. Acceptance by peers.
6. There will be many criteria which has to be accepted by all who wish to be rated within this criteria.

When all the above is filled in, there will be a resultant score against the standard at 10/10.

With the above, there will be many different sets of criteria and each member will accept their rating based on the transparency of the rules and criteria.

However, in the case for the credibility and objectivity of science and various knowledge, it will not be difficult for rational and critical thinkers* to agreed to one set of criteria.
Theists, mystics [mysticism] and those into pseudo-sciences will not agree with the set agreeable by rational and critical thinkers.

Btw, what I proposed is for the future when there is a sufficient critical mass of people with reasonable rationality and critical thinking.
It is not likely to materialize at present because the majority [>80 up to 90%] are irrational theists at present and most of the rest prefer to talk shit [as evident there and out there] than taking philosophy more seriously.

You gave us numbers without doing anything like what you are proposing here.
And you are depending - in the last paragraph - on future agreement for your ideas. This is the equivalent of a scienst saying 'One day in the results of the experiements will fit my hypothesis, so you should believe it now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theists, mystics [mysticism] and those into pseudo-sciences will not agree with the set agreeable by rational and critical thinkers.

You are using sciencey words to make make a non-scientific branch of enquiry - that doesn't use actual scientific methods - sound a bit like a sciency one, so that you can call it a "near-equivalent" of sciences... you are manufacturing pseudo-sciences.

You are SO ignorant.

Note the Astronomy-FSK relied heavily on the other Scientific-FSK to generate its own specific Astronomical Fact.

It is accordance to the authority of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as specific human-based astronomical FSK that dictates its objective fact, i.e.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

I asked ChatGpt to give me a list of non-scientific FSK [and fringe sub-scientific FSK] that relied solely the main scientific FSK [Physics, Chemistry and Biology] to generate their own specific FSK-ed facts.
ChatGpt gave a long list, e.g. geophysics, etc.

If the above is possible, then it is possible for a moral-FSK that is solely or heavily dependent on scientific facts.
This is the intention of my morality-proper-FSK in generating its specific moral-FSK-ed facts.
This is a matter of satisfying the necessary conditions.

The problem with you is you [& PH] have a shallow, narrow, dogmatic and fundamentalistic mind that prevent you from thinking my proposal is an impossibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

Theists, mystics [mysticism] and those into pseudo-sciences will not agree with the set agreeable by rational and critical thinkers.

You are using sciencey words to make make a non-scientific branch of enquiry - that doesn't use actual scientific methods - sound a bit like a sciency one, so that you can call it a "near-equivalent" of sciences... you are manufacturing pseudo-sciences.

You are SO ignorant.

Note the Astronomy-FSK relied heavily on the other Scientific-FSK to generate its own specific Astronomical Fact.

It is accordance to the authority of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as specific human-based astronomical FSK that dictates its objective fact, i.e.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Do you remember when I mentioned that there is a difference of type between data which we confirm by looking at an object (and which anybody who inspects that same object can therefore confirm for themselves) and data which we arrive at only via introspection of our intenal beliefs such as your FSK opinion polls? This is where you end up looking dumb for trying to ignore that correct thing I told you.

Astronomy is objective because it is looking at the objective properties of objects beyond the Earth, not becuase you placed it in a list near to zoology and electrochemistry.

I asked ChatGpt to give me a list of non-scientific FSK [and fringe sub-scientific FSK] that relied solely the main scientific FSK [Physics, Chemistry and Biology] to generate their own specific FSK-ed facts.
ChatGpt gave a long list, e.g. geophysics, etc.

If the above is possible, then it is possible for a moral-FSK that is solely or heavily dependent on scientific facts.
This is the intention of my morality-proper-FSK in generating its specific moral-FSK-ed facts.
This is a matter of satisfying the necessary conditions.

The problem with you is you [& PH] have a shallow, narrow, dogmatic and fundamentalistic mind that prevent you from thinking my proposal is an impossibility.

I suspect that those listed items you aren't sharing mostly inspect data from objective sources, in the manner of objectivty I have described. Your FSK thing does not. You will always be called on this discrepancy and you will never be able to paper over this gap. Calling us names for the sin of noticing that obvious problem is not an effective solution. Nor is posting the same "two types of objectivity" argument a million times going to address it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are using sciencey words to make make a non-scientific branch of enquiry - that doesn't use actual scientific methods - sound a bit like a sciency one, so that you can call it a "near-equivalent" of sciences... you are manufacturing pseudo-sciences.

You are SO ignorant.

Note the Astronomy-FSK relied heavily on the other Scientific-FSK to generate its own specific Astronomical Fact.

It is accordance to the authority of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as specific human-based astronomical FSK that dictates its objective fact, i.e.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Do you remember when I mentioned that there is a difference of type between data which we confirm by looking at an object (and which anybody who inspects that same object can therefore confirm for themselves) and data which we arrive at only via introspection of our intenal beliefs such as your FSK opinion polls? This is where you end up looking dumb for trying to ignore that correct thing I told you.

Astronomy is objective because it is looking at the objective properties of objects beyond the Earth, not becuase you placed it in a list near to zoology and electrochemistry.

Your point is way off [strawman] my intent.
Objectivity is never absolute.
The main issue here is regarding the degrees of objectivity between the various FSKs.
I mentioned FSK-ed facts can be inputted into other FSKs.

I have highlighted above, there ought to be a difference in degrees of objectivity between Physics and Astronomy due to differences in their Framework and System of Knowledge.
When a FSK-ed fact from a more credible FSK, e.g. [physics, chemistry or biology] are inputted into other FSKs, there is a dilution of credibility and objectivity RELATIVE to the best standard of science.

My proposed model of a morality-proper-FSK conditions is, the majority and weightage of the input are those from the scientific FSK.
As the such the relative credible and objectivity of the model is lesser but near to the scientific FSK.

I asked ChatGpt to give me a list of non-scientific FSK [and fringe sub-scientific FSK] that relied solely the main scientific FSK [Physics, Chemistry and Biology] to generate their own specific FSK-ed facts.
ChatGpt gave a long list, e.g. geophysics, etc.

If the above is possible, then it is possible for a moral-FSK that is solely or heavily dependent on scientific facts.
This is the intention of my morality-proper-FSK in generating its specific moral-FSK-ed facts.
This is a matter of satisfying the necessary conditions.

The problem with you is you [& PH] have a shallow, narrow, dogmatic and fundamentalistic mind that prevent you from thinking my proposal is an impossibility.

I suspect that those listed items you aren't sharing mostly inspect data from objective sources, in the manner of objectivty I have described. Your FSK thing does not. You will always be called on this discrepancy and you will never be able to paper over this gap. Calling us names for the sin of noticing that obvious problem is not an effective solution. Nor is posting the same "two types of objectivity" argument a million times going to address it.

As stated above,

My proposed model of a morality-proper-FSK conditions is, the majority and weightage of the input are those from the scientific FSK.
As the such the relative credible and objectivity of the model is lesser but near to the scientific FSK.

You dispute this?
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Realists mind-independent objectivity
2. Antirealists' FSK-ed objectivity

What is your counter to the above?

[FlashDangerpants]

My proposed model of a morality-proper-FSK conditions is, the majority and weightage of the input are those from the scientific FSK.
As the such the relative credible and objectivity of the model is lesser but near to the scientific FSK.

I think you need reminding that this is what you set as the absolute minimum for an FSK to hold credibility.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

According to this your morality-proper-FSK-Thing explicitly does not qualify for your own claim that it is nearly matches "science" for "credibility". It does not have sufficient members. So you must stop asserting this equivalence that you are lying about.

[Iwannaplato]

My proposed model of a morality-proper-FSK conditions is, the majority and weightage of the input are those from the scientific FSK.
As the such the relative credible and objectivity of the model is lesser but near to the scientific FSK.

I think you need reminding that this is what you set as the absolute minimum for an FSK to hold credibility.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

According to this your morality-proper-FSK-Thing explicitly does not qualify for your own claim that it is nearly matches "science" for "credibility". It does not have sufficient members. So you must stop asserting this equivalence that you are lying about.

One things I tried to explain to him is that his rating of his coming to moral facts as mostly science is based on a confused idea about what 'most' in such a situation means. It's not additive. If you argue that it is a moral fact that bats should be treated as equals to humans and include 30 pages of facts about bats and in the last sentence of this treatise tack in an unwarrented step. Thus we should..... The entire argument is unscientific or can be.

But look at all those pages of science!!!!!!

Sure, but one utterly non-scientific step can undermine the entire argument and further can make the entire thing utterly non-scientific. You're not simply adding zero, it is like metaphorically multipying the whole thing with zero.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My proposed model of a morality-proper-FSK conditions is, the majority and weightage of the input are those from the scientific FSK.
As the such the relative credible and objectivity of the model is lesser but near to the scientific FSK.

I think you need reminding that this is what you set as the absolute minimum for an FSK to hold credibility.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

According to this your morality-proper-FSK-Thing explicitly does not qualify for your own claim that it is nearly matches "science" for "credibility". It does not have sufficient members. So you must stop asserting this equivalence that you are lying about.

I did not claim what I proposed is already working in practice.
What I proposed is equivalent based on principles and theory.
It is merely a hypothetical model which based on the principles and processes will be an improvements over the current models of ethics.
This is philosophy in action.

If the majority of inputs of my proposed moral-proper FSK are from the scientific FSK, why can't it have a near [not exactly] credibility and objectivity to that of the scientific FSK?

[FlashDangerpants]

My proposed model of a morality-proper-FSK conditions is, the majority and weightage of the input are those from the scientific FSK.
As the such the relative credible and objectivity of the model is lesser but near to the scientific FSK.

I think you need reminding that this is what you set as the absolute minimum for an FSK to hold credibility.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

According to this your morality-proper-FSK-Thing explicitly does not qualify for your own claim that it is nearly matches "science" for "credibility". It does not have sufficient members. So you must stop asserting this equivalence that you are lying about.

I did not claim what I proposed is already working in practice.
What I proposed is equivalent based on principles and theory.
It is merely a hypothetical model which based on the principles and processes will be an improvements over the current models of ethics.
This is philosophy in action.

If the majority of inputs of my proposed moral-proper FSK are from the scientific FSK, why can't it have a near [not exactly] credibility and objectivity to that of the scientific FSK?

What part of "sufficient members" don't you understand? It's your own words you dimwit.
You just want to change the rules to suit yourself.

[FlashDangerpants]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rating things btw, but it goes both ways. I'll give VA's philosophy say a 3/10, where I would consider 7.5/10 as "good". After years of hard work he hasn't managed to improve at all on that score imo.

Yes, if we ran it through that list of criteria he uses to justify FSKs it would be very hard to pin down a number, but it would also be very hard for VA to object to, for example, your assessment.

The above can be done easily in an objective manner.

First state all the rules.
List down the list of criteria and weightages for acceptance by all members.
Based on the criteria, explain what comprised of the ideal standard at 10/10.
E.g. the criteria to be accepted could be, say,
1. The scope, range of philosophy covered, e.g. Eastern, Western, etc.
2. The subjects covered within 1 above.
3. Number of philosophical books read, incl. the critical texts.
4. Test scores taken at regular periods.
5. Acceptance by peers.
6. There will be many criteria which has to be accepted by all who wish to be rated within this criteria.

Ok, let's see how you do....

1. Scope and range of VA's philosophy.
OOf. 11,000 posts, but he's repeating things a "million times". It's really all just an obsession with FSK things and trying to boss everyone around. Not a lot of variety. But he's been chipping away at one bif topic and he blathers about eastern philosophy so much that he put it into this weird little list. So he gets one for the endless antireaslism speeches, one for the morality-proper-FSK thing, we'll let him have one for the FSK nonsense itself, and fourth point for whatever the fuck buddhism-proper is 4/10

2. The subjects covered within 1 above.
Sadly we cannot allocate points for meaningless sentences. 0/10

3. Number of philosophical books read, incl. the critical texts.
This one's a killer. He doesn't read them. He downloaded Mirror of Nature, but then just converted the PDF to word and meddled with the text formatting. The Critique practical is one of two books where he ever references anything in the actual contents of the book. The other is teh bit about the brown sense-data attached to the table in Ch1 of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy (Page 1 iirc, they use the same text to teach the first term of A level phil in the UK, it's an intro text). There's one other book, Essays in Moral Realism where I've seen him attempt to reference the content, but he got it so violently wrong that we cannot describe him as having read that one.

For all other works, he cites only what was referenced on the wikipedia page, or more recently what he can get ChatGPT to reference for him. It's got to be a one out of ten and he can be grateful for it. 1/10

4. Test scores taken at regular periods.
What an odd choice for the entirely self taught. VA is self taught and the many heroic grades he awards himself (you are a kindergartner, he received his Ph.D from 'VA University') are equivalent to the election victories of one of those dictators who had to choose whether to get 100% of the vote or give 3% to somebody else. This can only merit him a big fat zero. 0/10

5. Acceptance by peers.
Another weird choice. VA's work has zero acceptance and nobody thinks he is their peer. 0/10

So that's a generous 5/50 for mister VA, giving him a 1/10 and that's absolutely the most he could hope for.

To reach the heady heights of 3/10 proposed by Atla he would need to go to university and get at least a couple of decent essay scores before he inevitably drops out. He likes online school, that should be achievable. He also needs to read at least 10 books without pretending to have read enough just by nearly reading parts of them but deciding he's too important to actually spend his time on them.

[Iwannaplato]

5. Acceptance by peers.
Another weird choice. VA's work has zero acceptance and nobody thinks he is their peer. 0/10

Oh, but in the future he will have peer respect. You can borrow epistemological confirmation from future experiments and supporters, didn't you know that? I also think you didn't mull over what the peers of VA might be as a group. Not to ruin your weekend.

And besides, scientists who are realists have the respect of their peers...wait...I'm not sure that helps VA.

It's like a double negative.

[FlashDangerpants]

I also think you didn't mull over what the peers of VA might be as a group. Not to ruin your weekend.

Oh my, that really isn't good for my weekend. Luckily I was already planning to drink, I must now drink to forget.

[Veritas Aequitas]

5. Acceptance by peers.
Another weird choice. VA's work has zero acceptance and nobody thinks he is their peer. 0/10

Oh, but in the future he will have peer respect. You can borrow epistemological confirmation from future experiments and supporters, didn't you know that? I also think you didn't mull over what the peers of VA might be as a group. Not to ruin your weekend.

And besides, scientists who are realists have the respect of their peers...wait...I'm not sure that helps VA.

It's like a double negative.

Whatever is fact, truth and reality must conform to the specific human-based FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

As such whether one is realist, anti-realist or whatever, one's conclusion of reality must conform and comply to the conditions of the scientific FSK to ensure it is a scientific fact.
The scientific FSK is independent of realism, anti-realism and other ism.

Thus whichever scientists, they will have the respect of their scientific peers as long as they conform and comply with the conditions of the scientific FSK. Their other ism has nothing to do with the scientific FSK.

Thus as a scientist one has to wear the scientific-FSK hat and no other.