PH: FSKs are Worthless

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your blather about fsks is worthless.

The scientific FSK with is scientific methods and all other conditions are worthless?
What world are you living in?

And saying there's a morality fsk merely begs the question, because it assumes there are moral facts which can therefore be known.

No.. no .. no ..
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK and not the other way round, just as objective scientific facts emerged from the science-FSK.
If there is no science-chemistry FSK, there is no 'water is H20' [ignoring isomers].

The moral FSK is the same as the science-FSK albeit in different degrees of objectivity and credibility.

Here is ChatGpt view on FSK.
ChatGpt views are based on the general view surveyed from what is accessible to it from the whole of the internet as at Sept 2019.

Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science. It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.

Using this phrase to describe scientific knowledge implies that there is a systematic process by which scientific facts are discovered, verified, and integrated into a broader understanding of the natural world. This can include concepts such as scientific method, peer review, and consensus-building within the scientific community.

Overall, while the specific phrase "A Framework and System of Knowledge" may not be commonly used, it accurately reflects the way that knowledge is organized and understood within many academic fields.

When asked of the FSK relevance to Morality:

Yes, the concept of a framework and system of knowledge can also be applied to the field of morality. In this case, the term would refer to the organized and structured understanding of moral principles and ethical theories within the discipline of ethics.

Within ethics, there are various frameworks and systems of knowledge that help to guide moral reasoning and decision-making. For example, consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism focus on the outcomes or consequences of actions, while deontological theories such as Kantian ethics prioritize following moral duties or rules regardless of their outcomes. Other ethical frameworks include virtue ethics, care ethics, and feminist ethics.

By understanding these different frameworks and systems of knowledge, individuals can more effectively navigate moral dilemmas and make informed ethical decisions. Overall, the concept of a framework and system of knowledge can be applied to many different fields, including both scientific and moral domains.

The concept of FSK is implied in the following;
1. Science strongly -its objectivity is the Standard
2. All fields of knowledge in various degrees of objectivity
3. Kuhn's philosophy
4. Putnam's internal realism
5. Richard Feynman
6. Hawking's Model Dependent Realism
7. Morality
8. Politics
9. Others TBA.

Can anyone support PH's argument that FSR-FSKs [Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge] are worthless?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: TBA

[Iwannaplato]

The following are lies or very poor interpretation.

PH: FSKs are Worthless

Can anyone support PH's argument that FSR-FSKs [Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge] are worthless?

Let's look at what PH says according to VA....

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 7:33 am
Your blather about fsks is worthless.

Your blather is worthless, according to PH.

Now note, VA should know that PH respects, for example, science. He might not use the term FSK, which is what VA uses, but he certainly respects the findings of scientific research and so on. PH is not rejecting all the things VA CALLS FSKs.

If we read this ridiculous OP of VA's we would think that PH rejects FSKs in general. IOW he rejects all known systems for arriving at knowledge.
That's just silly. He does have a specific objection to VA's ideas related to what VA calls the moral FSK.

VA is asserting here is that PH rejects not VA's use of FSK's in arguments, nor WA's specific way of viewing moral FSKs, but rather that PH rejects everything THAT VA CALLS AN FSK as worthless.

VA is incapable of correctly reading the quote of PH that he has in the OP. The OP is the opposite of charitable interpretetion. It is intentional misrepresentation.

It if it not intentional, then VA needs help with some very basic logic and sentence analysis. I don't men basic philosophy. I mean, basic thinking.

[FlashDangerpants]

this ridiculous OP of VA's

He's resorting to a lot of clickbait bullshit recently. He took one sentence from Atla out of context to start a thread about Hume and Kant being idiots. He did the same to Pete here with these FSK things being worthless when it's really VA's blather about them which is of little to no value. And he did it with me the other day with some misreading of what I wrote about circular arguments.

He's in decline. He's having difficulty finding new dumb shit to write.

[Iwannaplato]

this ridiculous OP of VA's

He's resorting to a lot of clickbait bullshit recently. He took one sentence from Atla out of context to start a thread about Hume and Kant being idiots. He did the same to Pete here with these FSK things being worthless when it's really VA's blather about them which is of little to no value. And he did it with me the other day with some misreading of what I wrote about circular arguments.

He's in decline. He's having difficulty finding new dumb shit to write.

It has been an especially bad showing recently. I think he tried some arguments that were REALLY problematic, and it must have been harder to deny this.

I don't much like his creating a new thread when the OP is clearly a response in an already existing thread. But that is perhaps just me.

And yes, I commented on the Atla thread. I read your responses to where he called you out. As far as I could see he was misrepresenting you also, though I have to say I balked about going back to the other thread since it was really a whole different topic.

I don't think he understands that circularity or really cycles can be very useful, but this doesn't mean circular arguments are useful. And he'd never put up with one, if he managed to notice it. Or he have to accept an argument demonstrating that anti-realism is wrong because realism is right (+with a little fluff around it).

Call me someone making false psychic claims, but I'd bet the house he'd reject that argument.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let me remind the above who made strawman arguments.

I have argued,
The moral FSK is the same as the science-FSK albeit in different degrees of objectivity and credibility.
ChatGpt [with reservations] agreed this is the general view, i.e. common knowledge.

As such, if PH reject my moral FSK, then he is rejecting the science-FSK in the same sense.

[FlashDangerpants]

this ridiculous OP of VA's

He's resorting to a lot of clickbait bullshit recently. He took one sentence from Atla out of context to start a thread about Hume and Kant being idiots. He did the same to Pete here with these FSK things being worthless when it's really VA's blather about them which is of little to no value. And he did it with me the other day with some misreading of what I wrote about circular arguments.

He's in decline. He's having difficulty finding new dumb shit to write.

It has been an especially bad showing recently. I think he tried some arguments that were REALLY problematic, and it must have been harder to deny this.

I don't much like his creating a new thread when the OP is clearly a response in an already existing thread. But that is perhaps just me.

And yes, I commented on the Atla thread. I read your responses to where he called you out. As far as I could see he was misrepresenting you also, though I have to say I balked about going back to the other thread since it was really a whole different topic.

I don't think he understands that circularity or really cycles can be very useful, but this doesn't mean circular arguments are useful. And he'd never put up with one, if he managed to notice it. Or he have to accept an argument demonstrating that anti-realism is wrong because realism is right (+with a little fluff around it).

Call me someone making false psychic claims, but I'd bet the house he'd reject that argument.

I think we can discard any concern that he would spot why any argument is invalid by simply scrolling back one post and looking at the claim:
"As such, if PH reject my moral FSK, then he is rejecting the science-FSK in the same sense."
He thinks that's valid. He could write that out in his P1, P2, C1 format and be quite convinced he had a valid&sound syllogism there. He might even get ChatGPT to tell him what a clever boy he is at the same time.

VA cannot do the basics of argument construction, he has never been able to, and the chances aren't looking good for his future efforts. He will never understand the problem with a circular argument any better than with affirming of consequents and weak analogies. So I can imagine him attempting to reject some argument as circular one day, but I would at best offer a coin toss to guess whether he would get that right.

There was honestly no real need to visit that other thread for the breakdown of the Henry thing, it's all old stuff and the summary in trhead I provided was accurate enough for that particular topic. But VA could have used one of the many times I've pointed to circularity in his own arguments to launch that thread if he cared for the actual logic of the thing. Seeing as targets of that accusation include his claims of "credibility" for FSK-things that would be much more relevant than some equally old news about Henry.

It's sort of cool that he's moved on to challenging Atla with his call out threads. Where's yours?

[Iwannaplato]

I think we can discard any concern that he would spot why any argument is invalid by simply scrolling back one post and looking at the claim:
"As such, if PH reject my moral FSK, then he is rejecting the science-FSK in the same sense."

That was basically the claim in the OP, but thanks for pointing it out. This more direct version is really funny looking.
He recently chastised someone - seed or Atla - for declaring victory. I'm not sure he notices his own (ungrounded) declarations.

He thinks that's valid. He could write that out in his P1, P2, C1 format and be quite convinced he had a valid&sound syllogism there. He might even get ChatGPT to tell him what a clever boy he is at the same time.

VA cannot do the basics of argument construction, he has never been able to, and the chances aren't looking good for his future efforts. He will never understand the problem with a circular argument any better than with affirming of consequents and weak analogies. So I can imagine him attempting to reject some argument as circular one day, but I would at best offer a coin toss to guess whether he would get that right.

I think a core part of the pattern here is the oblique response. I don't think he realizes that he's generally not responding to criticism. He reiterates his argument. He finds a new defense of his position. He attacks the position or perceived position of his opponent as a defense. But he generally does not directly interact with people's critiques. They trigger a response.

It's very evasive, but I think his own long posts are fooling him into thinking he is countering people's points.

It's sort of cool that he's moved on to challenging Atla with his call out threads. Where's yours?

I think he's ignoring me again. He did that for a long time. Which is probably good for my cortisol levels.