Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 10:08 am
I asked VA: 'Why is 'the scientific FSK...the most credible and objective'? And to which FSK [sic] is that fact 'qualified'? It can't be the scientific FSK, because that would be circular.'
VA replied: 'The scientific FSK's objectivity qualifies the factuality, reality and actuality of things as with other FSKs of the same consideration.'
Which doesn't answer the question. It's a word salad. Blather-flak.
And VA helpfully clarified as follows: 'To assess the credibility of a human-based FSK [re reality and actuality] we have a human-based FSK of assessment based on rationality and critical thinking, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK'
As Flash has pointed out, this is an infinite-regress: What makes an 'FSK of assessment based on rationality and critical thinking' credible and reliable? The claim that natural science is the most credible and reliable source of knowledge because it's rational and cognitively critical is empty.
The sad thing is that VA knows damn well - and has often said - that empirical evidence of
features of reality is what makes natural science credible and (provisionally) reliable. So why deflect? Answer: VA has to defend the silly idea that
features of reality - aka facts - are, as it were, products of FSKs, so they can't be independent from FSKs. Hence: 'PH's What is Fact is Illusory'.
Nope!
Your "
that empirical evidence of features of reality is what makes natural science credible and (provisionally) reliable" is a 'bald' empty and insufficient without the qualification to its
scientific method and other necessary conditions that are implicit within a Framework and System of Reality and Knowledge.
My principle is whatever is fact [truth, real, knowledge, and objectivity] is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality and Knowledge [FSRK].
It is very philosophical immature to deny that the resultants of science [scientific facts] are conditioned upon a Framework and System [the main element being the scientific method or system].
It is true, there is a semblance of infinite regress in the assessment of the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK as the most credible and objective.
But to insist on a never ending infinite regress without consideration to the pragmatics is very irrational and immature.
The point is the assessment FSK is a meta-FSK over all over FSRKs and is conditioned upon core elements of credibility and objectivity, e.g.
- Evidence: Does the FSRK rely on robust empirical evidence and rigorous testing to support its claims?
Testability and repeatability:
Falsifiability:
Coherence: Does the FSRK internally cohere and avoid inconsistencies within its own framework?
Explanatory power: Does the FSRK effectively explain a wide range of phenomena and provide predictive capabilities?
Progress: Has the FSRK led to significant advancements in knowledge, technology, and understanding the world?
Practical applicability: Does the FSRK offer practical solutions and benefits that improve human life?
The above resultant of the scientific FSRK can be tested, repeated, verified and justified as true based on actual results in practice based on its contributions to the progress of humanity since its emergence relative to the facts from other FSRKs.
It there a better FSRK [besides mathematics] than the scientific FSRK in terms of its contribution to the progress of humanity?
You deny this?
Btw, there is no question to the objectivity [as defined] pertaining to the FSRKs because as defined the resultants of the scientific FSRK is independent of a subject's opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Btw, you still have not counter my claim
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
