What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also - what is it that makes one KFC more credible and reliable than another anyway? VA has never explained this.

I think the ranking nonsense is a distraction from the main issue, which is: why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?

The silly KFC theory doesn't address this question, because it's main claim is that there's no such thing as reality ('whatever is real' etc) outside KFCs.

So the only way to assess the relative credibility and reliability of KFCs - for example, why astronomy is more credible and reliable than astrology - is from within another KFC - and so on, in an endless circle. (Among others, IWP has been pointing this out for ages.)

Supposedly, there's no reality outside KFCs against which to assess them. So VA has no basis for his belief that the natural sciences are 'better' than all the others. And I think this leads to the contradiction at the heart of all the fashionable versions of antirealism that VA peddles.

I will not be responding to strawman[s].
I did not use the abbreviation you used above.
Where is your intellectual integrity?

[Skepdick]

This objective standard targets no humans are killed by humans.

Eh?!? What about humans killed by preventable medical conditions ?!?

You keep missing the forrest for the trees.

??
if humans are killed in any way [medical conditions] in contra to the standard,
then the onus is to find preventive measures to avoid such killings in the future in striving to meet the standard.

Your standard only concerns itself with humans being killed by humans.

It doesn't concern itself with humans being killed by cancer; or heart disease; or malaria etc...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Eh?!? What about humans killed by preventable medical conditions ?!?

You keep missing the forrest for the trees.

??
if humans are killed in any way [medical conditions] in contra to the standard,
then the onus is to find preventive measures to avoid such killings in the future in striving to meet the standard.

Your standard only concerns itself with humans being killed by humans.

It doesn't concern itself with humans being killed by cancer; or heart disease; or malaria etc...

Yes, re cancer and other diseases that has nothing to do with the moral FSRC, but rather the medical FSRC.
It is up to the medical FSRC to deal and find cures for and prevent the various fatal diseases.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are ignorant and living within a silo.
If you have to have open heart surgery would you depend of the theories and practices of a shaman [FSRC] or a cardiac surgeon leaning his skills on the science-FRSC.
Any rational person will rely on the cardiac surgeon but merely based on faith?
This is why we need some sort of measurement of objectivity to conclude why the cardiac surgeon is more credible, trustworthy and objective.

If that were true we would be stupid to rely on made up numbers as a means for deciding the "credibility" of one of these KFCs, it be suicide. Lukcinly it isn't, because I don't need any numbers tohelp me decide whether to visit a real doctor or a witch doctor, I don't even consider the voodoo option and if you offered me numbers that said I ought to, I would laugh at your silly made up numbers again.


This is because medical science is type of thing we currently believe we are justified in trusting, and witchcraft is the sort of thing we currently are all persuaded is dumb. Then we only need to know enougg to work out which category to place a thing into and then we are golden.

I know enough about how measurement is supposed to work that I can see that your credibilty-scoring-KFC-bucket is nonsense that makes up bullshit numbers for the purposes of a pointless scoring system to be used in a maniacal sorting game by one strange man on the internet. I don't need to assign it a credibility score of 0.7 out of 622 to know that I will never use it or the fraudulent numbers you make up.

It is the same with comparing the theories of creationists [FSRC] with those of Science-Physics-Cosmology FSRC.

There are definitely times where we need to assess the credibility and objective of other varying degree within a spectrum from low to high.

I suggest your research wider from your existing dogmatic knowledge-base.

That is just more pointless sorting games. Nobody is into them except you. They are shit and stupid.

"Nobody is into them except you" ??
You are very ignorant of what is going in this world.

I would not have referred to such practices if I had not attended courses that teach such a methodology related to decision-making which is ubiquitous in human life.

Who are these people who think they need a numerical value to tell them that physics is a good science and divining the future by reading the entrails of slaughtered animals is bad science? Who is the fool that wouldn't choose the same course of action irrespective of what number you make up for it? Anybody who believes in your meta-KFC-bucket of ranking all the knowings also believes in other pseudo-scientific bullshit anyway and so will probably slaughter a chicken to find out what to do next.

It is not about the numbers generated as examples but rather what is important are the Principles involved to facilitate decision making.
If you read On Certainty seriously, you will find Wittgenstein did grapple with the issue of which is more certain, doubtful or on "I know".
If W had time or necessity to be more rigorous he would have to resort to using sets of criteria and put in relevant weightages.

Nobody actually needs precision to decide whether the search for inner peace via sitting very still is worth doing. Such precision is also not available, which is why you make up the numbers and why alternative numbers made up by anybody else are equally valid. And that completly undermines your claimed principle, which is actually wortholess.

There is no necessity. You personally have a psychological compulsion towards a certain type of activity that you find comforting and that involves organising things into lists which you sort and that appears to give you a feeling of control and understanding. That's fine, but you cannot inflict this problem on everyone else.

[Sculptor]

He's right. You are an idiot, because you think that slavery is wrong because Paris the the capital of France..

That's the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.

And yet that is EXACTLY what you said.
So I am glad you agree that you have said the most idiotic thing you are likley to hear today.

[Peter Holmes]

Also - what is it that makes one KFC more credible and reliable than another anyway? VA has never explained this.

I think the ranking nonsense is a distraction from the main issue, which is: why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?

The silly KFC theory doesn't address this question, because it's main claim is that there's no such thing as reality ('whatever is real' etc) outside KFCs.

So the only way to assess the relative credibility and reliability of KFCs - for example, why astronomy is more credible and reliable than astrology - is from within another KFC - and so on, in an endless circle. (Among others, IWP has been pointing this out for ages.)

Supposedly, there's no reality outside KFCs against which to assess them. So VA has no basis for his belief that the natural sciences are 'better' than all the others. And I think this leads to the contradiction at the heart of all the fashionable versions of antirealism that VA peddles.

I will not be responding to strawman[s].
I did not use the abbreviation you used above.
Where is your intellectual integrity?

Explaining why your various abbreviations for what amounts to 'the practice and discourse of, for example, physics' are all silly doesn't work. So we're trying teasing mockery, with 'KFC'.

And anyway, where is your intellectual integrity? In my post I set out, again, reasons why your theory is useless. But instead of actually addressing and trying to refute those points, you whinge about being mocked.

Why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?

[Skepdick]

He's right. You are an idiot, because you think that slavery is wrong because Paris the the capital of France..

That's the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.

And yet that is EXACTLY what you said.

I didn't say it.

You said that I said it. But I didn't.

So I am glad you agree that you have said the most idiotic thing you are likley to hear today.

Indeed. The thing you said that I said (when I didn't) was the most idiotic thing...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also - what is it that makes one KFC more credible and reliable than another anyway? VA has never explained this.

I think the ranking nonsense is a distraction from the main issue, which is: why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?

The silly KFC theory doesn't address this question, because it's main claim is that there's no such thing as reality ('whatever is real' etc) outside KFCs.

So the only way to assess the relative credibility and reliability of KFCs - for example, why astronomy is more credible and reliable than astrology - is from within another KFC - and so on, in an endless circle. (Among others, IWP has been pointing this out for ages.)

Supposedly, there's no reality outside KFCs against which to assess them. So VA has no basis for his belief that the natural sciences are 'better' than all the others. And I think this leads to the contradiction at the heart of all the fashionable versions of antirealism that VA peddles.

I will not be responding to strawman[s].
I did not use the abbreviation you used above.
Where is your intellectual integrity?

Explaining why your various abbreviations for what amounts to 'the practice and discourse of, for example, physics' are all silly doesn't work. So we're trying teasing mockery, with 'KFC'.

And anyway, where is your intellectual integrity? In my post I set out, again, reasons why your theory is useless. But instead of actually addressing and trying to refute those points, you whinge about being mocked.

Why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?

I will be VERY interested to defend it if you have set out reasons why my theory is useless.
Where?

Why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?

I have already explained and linked it [& related threads] a "million" times.

What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

What Other Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

You have to understand [not agree with] the above to give your reasons why my theory re FSK [FSRC] is useless.
I am seriously interested in your views.

To get a better understanding of the FSRC, it is advisable you read this;

Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979
The fundamentals are the same. i.e. while relativism is on relativity, mine is on contingency, unconditionality and necessity.

This is a serious topic as reflected in this SEP article;
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

[Veritas Aequitas]

If that were true we would be stupid to rely on made up numbers as a means for deciding the "credibility" of one of these KFCs, it be suicide. Lukcinly it isn't, because I don't need any numbers tohelp me decide whether to visit a real doctor or a witch doctor, I don't even consider the voodoo option and if you offered me numbers that said I ought to, I would laugh at your silly made up numbers again.


This is because medical science is type of thing we currently believe we are justified in trusting, and witchcraft is the sort of thing we currently are all persuaded is dumb. Then we only need to know enougg to work out which category to place a thing into and then we are golden.

I know enough about how measurement is supposed to work that I can see that your credibilty-scoring-KFC-bucket is nonsense that makes up bullshit numbers for the purposes of a pointless scoring system to be used in a maniacal sorting game by one strange man on the internet. I don't need to assign it a credibility score of 0.7 out of 622 to know that I will never use it or the fraudulent numbers you make up.

That is just more pointless sorting games. Nobody is into them except you. They are shit and stupid.

"Nobody is into them except you" ??
You are very ignorant of what is going in this world.

I would not have referred to such practices if I had not attended courses that teach such a methodology related to decision-making which is ubiquitous in human life.

Who are these people who think they need a numerical value to tell them that physics is a good science and divining the future by reading the entrails of slaughtered animals is bad science? Who is the fool that wouldn't choose the same course of action irrespective of what number you make up for it? Anybody who believes in your meta-KFC-bucket of ranking all the knowings also believes in other pseudo-scientific bullshit anyway and so will probably slaughter a chicken to find out what to do next.

It is not about the numbers generated as examples but rather what is important are the Principles involved to facilitate decision making.
If you read On Certainty seriously, you will find Wittgenstein did grapple with the issue of which is more certain, doubtful or on "I know".
If W had time or necessity to be more rigorous he would have to resort to using sets of criteria and put in relevant weightages.

Nobody actually needs precision to decide whether the search for inner peace via sitting very still is worth doing. Such precision is also not available, which is why you make up the numbers and why alternative numbers made up by anybody else are equally valid. And that completly undermines your claimed principle, which is actually wortholess.

There is no necessity. You personally have a psychological compulsion towards a certain type of activity that you find comforting and that involves organising things into lists which you sort and that appears to give you a feeling of control and understanding. That's fine, but you cannot inflict this problem on everyone else.

You are ignorant.

The obvious is the differentiation of creationists views against science-Physics-Cosmology on the origin of the universe.

One crucial question facing epistemic relativism is how to identify and individuate alternative epistemic systems.
The intuitive idea is that varying and possibly incompatible cognitive principles, ground-level beliefs and presuppositions, or what Wittgenstein calls “hinge” and “bedrock” propositions (Wittgenstein 1969: §§341–343) separate non-convergent epistemic schemes.
A simple and quite commonly used example is the contrast between scientific and religious belief systems. Boghossian, for instance, uses the debate between Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine as a case study of an encounter between antagonists operating within putatively different epistemic frameworks, who use different frameworks, or as Rorty (1979) put it “grids”, for determining what would count as appropriate evidence on planetary movements.
The relativist claims that there is no fact of the matter about whether the Copernican theory or the geocentric view is justified by the evidence, “for there are no absolute facts about what justifies what” (Boghossian 2006a: 62) while the anti-relativist attempts to show the unintelligibility or the implausibility of such a claim.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#EpiRel

The above mentioned 'intuitive'. A detailed analysis and comparison will give anyone an idea where the credibility and objectivity of each view stands. [note W is mentioned above]

The same can be done for all other related view to assess their credibility and objectivity in using the scientific FSRC as the gold standard.

Are you sure NOBODY has applied in practice what I discussed above?

[FlashDangerpants]

"Nobody is into them except you" ??
You are very ignorant of what is going in this world.

I would not have referred to such practices if I had not attended courses that teach such a methodology related to decision-making which is ubiquitous in human life.

Who are these people who think they need a numerical value to tell them that physics is a good science and divining the future by reading the entrails of slaughtered animals is bad science? Who is the fool that wouldn't choose the same course of action irrespective of what number you make up for it? Anybody who believes in your meta-KFC-bucket of ranking all the knowings also believes in other pseudo-scientific bullshit anyway and so will probably slaughter a chicken to find out what to do next.

It is not about the numbers generated as examples but rather what is important are the Principles involved to facilitate decision making.
If you read On Certainty seriously, you will find Wittgenstein did grapple with the issue of which is more certain, doubtful or on "I know".
If W had time or necessity to be more rigorous he would have to resort to using sets of criteria and put in relevant weightages.

Nobody actually needs precision to decide whether the search for inner peace via sitting very still is worth doing. Such precision is also not available, which is why you make up the numbers and why alternative numbers made up by anybody else are equally valid. And that completly undermines your claimed principle, which is actually wortholess.

There is no necessity. You personally have a psychological compulsion towards a certain type of activity that you find comforting and that involves organising things into lists which you sort and that appears to give you a feeling of control and understanding. That's fine, but you cannot inflict this problem on everyone else.

You are ignorant.

The obvious is the differentiation of creationists views against science-Physics-Cosmology on the origin of the universe.

One crucial question facing epistemic relativism is how to identify and individuate alternative epistemic systems.
The intuitive idea is that varying and possibly incompatible cognitive principles, ground-level beliefs and presuppositions, or what Wittgenstein calls “hinge” and “bedrock” propositions (Wittgenstein 1969: §§341–343) separate non-convergent epistemic schemes.
A simple and quite commonly used example is the contrast between scientific and religious belief systems. Boghossian, for instance, uses the debate between Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine as a case study of an encounter between antagonists operating within putatively different epistemic frameworks, who use different frameworks, or as Rorty (1979) put it “grids”, for determining what would count as appropriate evidence on planetary movements.
The relativist claims that there is no fact of the matter about whether the Copernican theory or the geocentric view is justified by the evidence, “for there are no absolute facts about what justifies what” (Boghossian 2006a: 62) while the anti-relativist attempts to show the unintelligibility or the implausibility of such a claim.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#EpiRel

The above mentioned 'intuitive'. A detailed analysis and comparison will give anyone an idea where the credibility and objectivity of each view stands. [note W is mentioned above]

The same can be done for all other related view to assess their credibility and objectivity in using the scientific FSRC as the gold standard.

Are you sure NOBODY has applied in practice what I discussed above?

Your entire meta-KFC-bucket is an expedition into false precision. Making up numbers out of 100 because it feels more like what science would do than just giving something 3 stars out of 5 like the restaurant review you are actually creating. You are only making a list of your personal Yelp reviews, it isn't important or informative, and that is something everyone except you can see.

Nothing of your KFCs for credibility works at all. The rest is a house of cards that depends upon that set of Yelp reviews for its claim to make any sense. Calling me ignorant changes nothing. Your theory is going nowhere, you have persuaded absolutly nobody, and you lack the argument to ever remedy that.

[promethean75]

1000001246.jpg (31.89 KiB) Viewed 197 times

[Sculptor]

FSK = one person's opinion.

[Peter Holmes]

VA.

Why is the scientific 'framework and system of reality and cognition' (FSRC) 'the gold standard' with regard to credibility and reliability? And how can we know it is? By what criteria?

Please explain this without appealing to another FSRC, because that would be a circular or infinite regress argument. Happy to explain, if you don't understand.

If you agree it's because the natural sciences give us knowledge of reality, then welcome back.

[FlashDangerpants]

how can we know it is? By what criteria?

The credibility-of-science-KFC is based on the WeRateDogs Twitter dog rating system. As shown here:




Science is highly credible 11 out of 10 super-duper good boy. That's offical FACT, as proven by making up numbers in the highly credible good-doggo-KFC that is quite similar to science if you make up numbers to tell you it's sciency. It has 11/10 crediblynesses, so if you don't agree then why do you hate science so much?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA.

Why is the scientific 'framework and system of reality and cognition' (FSRC) 'the gold standard' with regard to credibility and reliability? And how can we know it is? By what criteria?

Please explain this without appealing to another FSRC, because that would be a circular or infinite regress argument. Happy to explain, if you don't understand.

If you agree it's because the natural sciences give us knowledge of reality, then welcome back.

I have already explained the above in many posts and on how to do it without begging the question.

Off hand, based on your own intuitive assessment, can you give me what other FSRCs [besides mathematics the 2nd most objective] can possibly be more credible and objective than the scientific FSRC as the gold standard.
Give me 5 possible FSRCs that are more credible and objective, if not at least 1 or 2.

If you agree it's because the natural sciences give us knowledge of reality, then welcome back.

Not sure what is your point?

I have insisted the scientific FSRC [at its best] is the most credible and objective and provided the necessary justifications why it is so.

I qualify "at its best" because even with natural sciences, e.g. physics, biology, chemistry has their speculative and purely theoretical aspects, e.g. big-bang, evolution, and others which do not represent its best.