- Also problematic for him is that one terrible step in an argument or justification of a conclusion can lead to 0 objectivity. He doesn't get this. If there are ten steps in an argument and 9 of them are objective or objectively arrived at subconclusions, and the last step is ridiculous. The conclusion of that process is not 90% objective 10% subjective. The whole thing gets undermined. Or even if he gives it a .00001 percent objective rating, this is a confusion. I could accept a subjective step in the argument possibly not undermining the whole thing, but something that has no justification or is randomly subjective like 'because I am the legitimate owner of the universe' it doesn't matter how objective the other steps in the argument/justification are objective.
If I bake a pie and it's 99% excellent ingredients and I even follow an excellent recipe, but it's got 1% arsenic in it, it's not a good pie unless my intent is to kill.
It's 100% a bad pie.
And if someone wants to argue 'but maybe the intent was to kill', well then it's 100% a good pie for those purposes. The good ingredients just make it more insidious and tasty.
Principle:
1. Whatever is objective is conditioned upon a human-based specific FSK.
2. A FSK itself must be logically valid.
3. Anything that is not logically valid do not qualify to be a valid FSK.
4. An invalid FSK cannot be a base for objectivity.
Thus if a FSK has any non-logical premises, it is non-sequitor, then it is not a valid FSK, thus cannot be used to deliberate on objectivity.
As such, if a 10-premise-argument has 9 valid premises and the last premise is invalid, then the whole argument [non-starter] cannot be used to deliberate on objectivity [in various degrees].
- If there are ten steps in an argument and 9 of them are objective or objectively arrived at subconclusions, and the last step is ridiculous.
Note this is a valid human-based FSK and it is objective;
- 1. The theological FSK is constituted upon its agreed holy text [say Gospel].
2. The Gospels stated God exists.
3. Therefore God exists.
But the element of God therein is illusory.
In contrast to the scientific FSK objectivity [empirical] as the standard [100/100], the Christian FSK [non-empirical] is at the other extreme of objectivity, say 0.0001 degrees of objectivity.
Let say, this ridiculous argument,
- 1. The theological FSK is constituted upon its agreed holy text [say Gospel].
2. The Gospels stated God exists.
3. The Gospels also stated God do not exists.
4. Therefore God exists.
Because it is not logical valid, we cannot even start to use it for deliberation of objectivity in any degrees. The WHOLE argument must be rejected for any deliberation of objectivity.
That to interpret the above as 67.666 objectivity and 33.333 non-objective based on the number of premises is a strawman.
Such an argument is a washout and a non-starter for any deliberation of objectivity.
Say,
1. All humans are mortal
2. All metal are not mortal
3. Socrates is a man and a metal
4. Socrates is mortal
The WHOLE argument above is logically invalid and thus is a non-starter for consideration of reality, truths and objectivity.
