VA vs. PH - Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not making up numbers at all.
You are ignorant as shit and insulting your intelligence in not knowing how indexing and establishing standard works.

In indexing and setting standards, first we take something fixed as the standard and compare everything else against that chosen standard.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible, thus setting it as the standard at 99.99 [or 100.00] being empirical based. This is a kindergarten step in setting standard.
If theology is not empirical based [zero empirical], then it would be 0.01 against the standard.

Example, say,
X can score 300 points in an hour in a Game.
We then choose to set his scores as the standard at 100.00* [99.99 or whatever]
IF Y were to score 3 points, then his rating would be 0.01% against the standard.
If Z were to score 150 points then his rating would be 50%.
For the other just divide the score by 300 to get the %.

This is so basic, how come you are SO ignorant of this process of setting standards and measuring against the standard.

FDP? his knowledge is too shallow and thinking too naive to deal with complex moral issues.

Sentence 1: A claim to not be making up numbers.

All the othere sentences: A description of how you go about making up the numbers.

It is your ignorance again.

I am not making up numbers regarding how the 100% [99.99% or whatever] came from.
To make effective comparisons, we need a fixed-goal post [a fixed STANDARD] that other variables can be compared to.
This fixed STANDARD is not something absolute but merely applicable to the relevant circumstances.
So the so-supposed fixed STANDARD can be changed where relevant and made transparent when used and deliberated.

This is statistics 101.
The 100% as the STANDARD is not something plucked from the air, but done in accordance to procedure.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not making up numbers at all.
You are ignorant as shit and insulting your intelligence in not knowing how indexing and establishing standard works.

In indexing and setting standards, first we take something fixed as the standard and compare everything else against that chosen standard.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible, thus setting it as the standard at 99.99 [or 100.00] being empirical based. This is a kindergarten step in setting standard.
If theology is not empirical based [zero empirical], then it would be 0.01 against the standard.

Example, say,
X can score 300 points in an hour in a Game.
We then choose to set his scores as the standard at 100.00* [99.99 or whatever]
IF Y were to score 3 points, then his rating would be 0.01% against the standard.
If Z were to score 150 points then his rating would be 50%.
For the other just divide the score by 300 to get the %.

This is so basic, how come you are SO ignorant of this process of setting standards and measuring against the standard.

FDP? his knowledge is too shallow and thinking too naive to deal with complex moral issues.

Sentence 1: A claim to not be making up numbers.

All the othere sentences: A description of how you go about making up the numbers.

It is your ignorance again.

I am not making up numbers regarding how the 100% [99.99% or whatever] came from.
To make effective comparisons, we need a fixed-goal post [a fixed STANDARD] that other variables can be compared to.
This fixed STANDARD is not something absolute but merely applicable to the relevant circumstances.
So the so-supposed fixed STANDARD can be changed where relevant and made transparent when used and deliberated.

This is statistics 101.
The 100% as the STANDARD is not something plucked from the air, but done in accordance to procedure.

I get it. You set 0 as the bottom number in the range. You set 100 as the top number in the range. Then you make up numbers between 0.00000001 and 99.9999997. The numbers are made up. There is no quantity of anything here to be counted. It's all fake.


Anyway. You get "experts" to make up the numbers with you don't you? And you set a "procedure" to govern the manufacturing of the numbers by the "experts", correct? This is all part of applyng that gloss of "objectivity" isn't it? So this is the next step in manufacturing "crediblity" while hiding the bandwagon under a table cloth.

[Iwannaplato]

The whole of the above post is a total misunderstanding of my points.

That's just not possible. I asked a lot of questions about what you meant. I asked for clarification of points. That was a high percentage of my post.

• Here is the games performance analogy again;
  Let say in computer-GAME ABC, points scores are given for the gamers' performance and average is computed on a daily, monthly, yearly basis.
  There are about 100,000 members playing Computer-Game ABC.
  So far, the best consistent performer is gamer-X with the highest average score of 1000 points.
  I understood your last example that had a clear point system. I specifically pointed out that this is different, very different from coming up with numbers for a field of inquiry, such as science, and my suggested example, history. Of course if you have very clear numbers for everything, you can compare, in this case competitors, with the standard.

For some reason you decided not to show how you would come up with a rating for history.

The above is statistics 101.
It is unfortunate for me to have to go to that length of communicate this simple basic of statistics.

I'm sorry too that you had to go this length to explain things I understand and in exactly the same way, but with more words, as you did last time. It is precisely the same kind of example and one that does not match the situation which is evaluating fields of inquiry.

And you did not even answer the rather basic questions related to what is the being measured when you give science the 100% or 99.99% science is being rated on and what FSK is determining the ratings of the different FSKs. At one point it seems science is the standard due to your sense it is 100% empirical. Some degree of empiricism might be the criterion. But in other places here and in other threads it has seemed like it is the accuracy of its predictions.

You managed to write another post without addressing my questions.

I need confirmation, else it is no point me explaining the above to
why the Scientific FSK is rated at 100% credibility and Objectivity
while in the extreme contrast the theology-FSK is rated at 0.01% credibility and Objectivity.

And here it is objectivity and credibility. Fine. How did you determine these criteria and I think a nice example from the middle - sociology, anthropology, history, would be good. Let's see a number generated for these. And I do want to note that here you talk about science's objectivity as the possible criterion, but earlier it was the degree of empiricalness.

You'd also need to explain, if you meant both these things, how empirical directly translates to objective.

Empirical means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Science is obviously a combination of these things. And that one bases conclusions on experience does not necessarily guarantee objectivity. They are different kinds of criteria, whether one is a realist or non-realist.

And Note: I am not saying you are wrong about science. I am saying you are not communicating clearly about what your criteria are, nor are you responding to my questions, such as the fact that much of theology is based on experience. That doesn't make it correct, but if your criterion is degree of empiricalness, there's a problem with your numbers.

Your posts can be shorter with the explicit insults of the post before this one and the implicit ones in this one. It would save time to leave those out. And you could have saved yourself a lot of time by not repeating precisely the same type of example.

Further assuming I don't understand setting standards is also wasting your time.

Of course theirs no compulsion for you to answer my questions, but this post implies you are responding to my post, but in the main, you did not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sentence 1: A claim to not be making up numbers.

All the othere sentences: A description of how you go about making up the numbers.

It is your ignorance again.

I am not making up numbers regarding how the 100% [99.99% or whatever] came from.
To make effective comparisons, we need a fixed-goal post [a fixed STANDARD] that other variables can be compared to.
This fixed STANDARD is not something absolute but merely applicable to the relevant circumstances.
So the so-supposed fixed STANDARD can be changed where relevant and made transparent when used and deliberated.

This is statistics 101.
The 100% as the STANDARD is not something plucked from the air, but done in accordance to procedure.

I get it. You set 0 as the bottom number in the range. You set 100 as the top number in the range. Then you make up numbers between 0.00000001 and 99.9999997. The numbers are made up. There is no quantity of anything here to be counted. It's all fake.

Anyway. You get "experts" to make up the numbers with you don't you? And you set a "procedure" to govern the manufacturing of the numbers by the "experts", correct? This is all part of applyng that gloss of "objectivity" isn't it? So this is the next step in manufacturing "crediblity" while hiding the bandwagon under a table cloth.

The numbers between 0.01 and 99.99 will be based on the accepted and agreed list of criteria [based on rationality and critical thinking] in assessing the overall rating of credibility and objectivity of each specific FSK.

Take one criteria, e.g. verification of empirical evidences in arriving at a justified conclusion. In terms of weightage it can be argued, it will be weighted at 0.75/1.00 over the rest of the other criteria.

Empirical Evidence is critical to the scientific-FSK in arriving at its claims.

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Meanwhile, the theological FSK is based on blind faith, i.e.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, faith is "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

On a rational and critical thinking basis, if the scientific FSK objectivity is taken [given, assumed] as the STANDARD at 100%, then, the theological FSK objectivity is likely to be very low or negligible which I have assigned at 0.01 given the high weightage of the criteria of 'empirical evidence' and the low points for other criteria.

What is technically wrong with the above approach?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The whole of the above post is a total misunderstanding of my points.

That's just not possible. I asked a lot of questions about what you meant. I asked for clarification of points. That was a high percentage of my post.

• Here is the games performance analogy again;
  Let say in computer-GAME ABC, points scores are given for the gamers' performance and average is computed on a daily, monthly, yearly basis.
  There are about 100,000 members playing Computer-Game ABC.
  So far, the best consistent performer is gamer-X with the highest average score of 1000 points.
  I understood your last example that had a clear point system. I specifically pointed out that this is different, very different from coming up with numbers for a field of inquiry, such as science, and my suggested example, history. Of course if you have very clear numbers for everything, you can compare, in this case competitors, with the standard.

For some reason you decided not to show how you would come up with a rating for history.

The above is statistics 101.
It is unfortunate for me to have to go to that length of communicate this simple basic of statistics.

I'm sorry too that you had to go this length to explain things I understand and in exactly the same way, but with more words, as you did last time. It is precisely the same kind of example and one that does not match the situation which is evaluating fields of inquiry.

And you did not even answer the rather basic questions related to what is the being measured when you give science the 100% or 99.99% science is being rated on and what FSK is determining the ratings of the different FSKs. At one point it seems science is the standard due to your sense it is 100% empirical. Some degree of empiricism might be the criterion. But in other places here and in other threads it has seemed like it is the accuracy of its predictions.

You managed to write another post without addressing my questions.

I need confirmation, else it is no point me explaining the above to
why the Scientific FSK is rated at 100% credibility and Objectivity
while in the extreme contrast the theology-FSK is rated at 0.01% credibility and Objectivity.

And here it is objectivity and credibility. Fine. How did you determine these criteria and I think a nice example from the middle - sociology, anthropology, history, would be good. Let's see a number generated for these. And I do want to note that here you talk about science's objectivity as the possible criterion, but earlier it was the degree of empiricalness.

You'd also need to explain, if you meant both these things, how empirical directly translates to objective.

Empirical means based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Science is obviously a combination of these things. And that one bases conclusions on experience does not necessarily guarantee objectivity. They are different kinds of criteria, whether one is a realist or non-realist.

And Note: I am not saying you are wrong about science. I am saying you are not communicating clearly about what your criteria are, nor are you responding to my questions, such as the fact that much of theology is based on experience. That doesn't make it correct, but if your criterion is degree of empiricalness, there's a problem with your numbers.

Your posts can be shorter with the explicit insults of the post before this one and the implicit ones in this one. It would save time to leave those out. And you could have saved yourself a lot of time by not repeating precisely the same type of example.

Further assuming I don't understand setting standards is also wasting your time.

Of course theirs no compulsion for you to answer my questions, but this post implies you are responding to my post, but in the main, you did not.

Whatever I need a confirmation and consensus of the principles and methods of setting standard based on the example I have given.
This is to avoid any 'talking pass each other' and being accused on plucking numbers from the air.

And Note: I am not saying you are wrong about science. I am saying you are not communicating clearly about what your criteria are, nor are you responding to my questions, such as the fact that much of theology is based on experience. That doesn't make it correct, but if your criterion is degree of empiricalness, there's a problem with your numbers.

1. A FSK dictates Objectivity
2. Empirical evidence is a critical criteria of all FSKs. 75% weightage
3. Therefore empirical evidence dictates objectivity with a 75% weightage

Note my point re the criticalness of empirical evidence as a main criteria for assessing the credibility and objectivity of each specific FSK.

In assessing the credibility and objectivity of a FSK, we must have an agreed list of criteria with their weightages. This listing of criteria MUST be used for all assessment of FSKs.
The number of criteria can be as many as possible [say 30 for our present purpose]. I have already listed the main ones in prior posts.

I mentioned above, the criteria of empirical evidence will carry a significant high weightage of say, 0.75/1.00, why? because it is obvious in terms of rationality and critical thinking.

In assessing the objectivity of each FSK, we must refer to all the agreed criteria and fill in their points or '0' points if not applicable.

I have explained in the above post how we ended up the theological FSK ending with a 0.01% objectivity in contrast to the assumed STANDARD of the scientific FSK at 100%.
It is 100% because it is chosen merely as the STANDARD for reference.

As for those likely objectivities between the two extremes, that will depend on the rating based on all the point in the agreed list of [30] criteria.

Take for example a specific legal FSK [not all are the same].
Within a typical legal FSK, not all the evidences are relied on verified empirical evidence but rather on the memory of witnesses.
In this case, the empirical evidence criteria can be assessed with say 50/100 in contrast to the scientific FSK [natural sciences] at say 90/100.
That legal FSK final judgment is based on a randomly selected citizens [thus rated appx 50/100] but in science it is based on the general consensus of credible peers from the specific fields of knowledge [thus rated 80/100].

The numbers assigned are merely to designate the "contrast" which any rational and critical thinker will accept. We can zoom into a more representative number via analyzing the details involved.
When all the criteria [30] are graded in the particular legal FSK, there will be a resultant figure based on the graded points with its weightages that is like to be between 0.01 and 99.99.

Not all the scientific FSK will have the same degree of reliability and objectivity.
Take for example the specific Science-Physics-Cosmology FSK.
It is not dependent on direct empirical evidence but rather secondary empirical evidences.
In this case, the grading for the empirical evidence [thus the resulting objectivity] will be lower than those which deal with direct empirical evidence.

There will be thousands of specific FSK and their credibility and objectivity must be assessed in accordance to the agreed criteria [30 in this discussion] which will results in a range of degrees of credibility and objectivity.

The above procedures of assessing credibility and objectivity is vulnerable to a high margin of errors.

So far, what is sufficient for the purpose of a the validity of a moral-FSK, it it sufficient to deliberate on the difference between the scientific FSK as the STANDARD at 100% and the theological FSK at the other extreme at 0.01%.
With such a high difference, that will likely mitigate any expected margin of error.
As such, this exercise can be very useful despite its weaknesses.

Based on the above we can then deliberate on the moral-FSK to determine where it lies in between.
I have claimed [in principle] my morality-proper FSK degrees of reliability and credibility will be around say 80/100 based on the features that the majority of its inputs will be from the empirical based scientific FSK.

My final claim is,
based on the above we can rope in all claims of reality within a common denominator of a FSK-ed objectivity, thus be able to rank their related facts, truths, and knowledge.
This is advantage to ensure theists and moral relativists can claim any superior position by claiming 'you cannot touch me' because my basis is transcendent, different and unique.

[Atla]

No-external-world-FSK: 3.498% confidence
Real-external-world-FSK: 96.017% confidence
None-of-the-above-FSK: 0.485% confidence

[Iwannaplato]

No-external-world-FSK: 3.498% confidence
Real-external-world-FSK: 96.017% confidence
None-of-the-above-FSK: 0.485% confidence

VA has asserted elsewhere that objectivity is intersubjective.
Scientists are in the main realists.
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4910
I can't speak for your tongue in cheek numbers, but the general point you make is supported by VA's own sense of what objectivity is.

He can argue that they are wrong, of course. But then he needs to change the way he views objectivity. His intersubjectivity totals with other non-realists is in the minority. Thus it should be, according to his own assertions, less objective.

[Atla]

No-external-world-FSK: 3.498% confidence
Real-external-world-FSK: 96.017% confidence
None-of-the-above-FSK: 0.485% confidence

VA has asserted elsewhere that objectivity is intersubjective.
Scientists are in the main realists.
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4910
I can't speak for your tongue in cheek numbers, but the general point you make is supported by VA's own sense of what objectivity is.

He can argue that they are wrong, of course. But then he needs to change the way he views objectivity. His intersubjectivity totals with other non-realists is in the minority. Thus it should be, according to his own assertions, less objective.

Objective-reality-is-just-an-intersubjective-concept-FSK: 22.216% confidence
Objective-reality-is-objectively-real-FSK: 73.571% confidence
None-of-the-above-FSK: 4.213% confidence

Oh these are just my very rough estimates with many random decimals added to them to make them look like 'guess-propers'. I process all of philosophy in terms of probabilities, of course. +- 5-10% or so on all my guesses, if I would spend a lot of time on them I might come up with more accurate ones.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is your ignorance again.

I am not making up numbers regarding how the 100% [99.99% or whatever] came from.
To make effective comparisons, we need a fixed-goal post [a fixed STANDARD] that other variables can be compared to.
This fixed STANDARD is not something absolute but merely applicable to the relevant circumstances.
So the so-supposed fixed STANDARD can be changed where relevant and made transparent when used and deliberated.

This is statistics 101.
The 100% as the STANDARD is not something plucked from the air, but done in accordance to procedure.

I get it. You set 0 as the bottom number in the range. You set 100 as the top number in the range. Then you make up numbers between 0.00000001 and 99.9999997. The numbers are made up. There is no quantity of anything here to be counted. It's all fake.

Anyway. You get "experts" to make up the numbers with you don't you? And you set a "procedure" to govern the manufacturing of the numbers by the "experts", correct? This is all part of applyng that gloss of "objectivity" isn't it? So this is the next step in manufacturing "crediblity" while hiding the bandwagon under a table cloth.

The numbers between 0.01 and 99.99 will be based on the accepted and agreed list of criteria [based on rationality and critical thinking] in assessing the overall rating of credibility and objectivity of each specific FSK.

Take one criteria, e.g. verification of empirical evidences in arriving at a justified conclusion. In terms of weightage it can be argued, it will be weighted at 0.75/1.00 over the rest of the other criteria.

Empirical Evidence is critical to the scientific-FSK in arriving at its claims.

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Meanwhile, the theological FSK is based on blind faith, i.e.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, faith is "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

On a rational and critical thinking basis, if the scientific FSK objectivity is taken [given, assumed] as the STANDARD at 100%, then, the theological FSK objectivity is likely to be very low or negligible which I have assigned at 0.01 given the high weightage of the criteria of 'empirical evidence' and the low points for other criteria.

What is technically wrong with the above approach?

Those are just the rules for making up a set of numbers.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh these are just my very rough estimates with many random decimals added to them to make them look like 'guess-propers'. I process all of philosophy in terms of probabilities, of course. +- 5-10% or so on all my guesses, if I would spend a lot of time on them I might come up with more accurate ones.

I do exactly the same thing, however I add a third %. My certainty level that my sense of the possibility of error is correct is +\- 75%, which makes me very comfortable with going into decimals since the next step in the process frees me from having made any claim at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I get it. You set 0 as the bottom number in the range. You set 100 as the top number in the range. Then you make up numbers between 0.00000001 and 99.9999997. The numbers are made up. There is no quantity of anything here to be counted. It's all fake.

Anyway. You get "experts" to make up the numbers with you don't you? And you set a "procedure" to govern the manufacturing of the numbers by the "experts", correct? This is all part of applyng that gloss of "objectivity" isn't it? So this is the next step in manufacturing "crediblity" while hiding the bandwagon under a table cloth.

The numbers between 0.01 and 99.99 will be based on the accepted and agreed list of criteria [based on rationality and critical thinking] in assessing the overall rating of credibility and objectivity of each specific FSK.

Take one criteria, e.g. verification of empirical evidences in arriving at a justified conclusion. In terms of weightage it can be argued, it will be weighted at 0.75/1.00 over the rest of the other criteria.

Empirical Evidence is critical to the scientific-FSK in arriving at its claims.

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Meanwhile, the theological FSK is based on blind faith, i.e.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, faith is "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

On a rational and critical thinking basis, if the scientific FSK objectivity is taken [given, assumed] as the STANDARD at 100%, then, the theological FSK objectivity is likely to be very low or negligible which I have assigned at 0.01 given the high weightage of the criteria of 'empirical evidence' and the low points for other criteria.

What is technically wrong with the above approach?

Those are just the rules for making up a set of numbers.

That is the point, I did not pluck the numbers from the air arbitrarily,
but rather 'make' numbers based on generally accepted rules of Statistics.
What is wrong with that?

[FlashDangerpants]

The numbers between 0.01 and 99.99 will be based on the accepted and agreed list of criteria [based on rationality and critical thinking] in assessing the overall rating of credibility and objectivity of each specific FSK.

Take one criteria, e.g. verification of empirical evidences in arriving at a justified conclusion. In terms of weightage it can be argued, it will be weighted at 0.75/1.00 over the rest of the other criteria.

Empirical Evidence is critical to the scientific-FSK in arriving at its claims.



Meanwhile, the theological FSK is based on blind faith, i.e.



On a rational and critical thinking basis, if the scientific FSK objectivity is taken [given, assumed] as the STANDARD at 100%, then, the theological FSK objectivity is likely to be very low or negligible which I have assigned at 0.01 given the high weightage of the criteria of 'empirical evidence' and the low points for other criteria.

What is technically wrong with the above approach?

Those are just the rules for making up a set of numbers.

That is the point, I did not pluck the numbers from the air arbitrarily,
but rather 'make' numbers based on generally accepted rules of Statistics.
What is wrong with that?

Your numbers are made up.

Anyone can make a set of rules for making up a set of numbers, the numbers are all made up, so it doesn't matter if the other guy's rules are nothing like yours, nor does it matter if his numbers are. It's all just make-believe.

[Atla]

Give it a few more decades and VA might develop a halfway usable FSKs-with-numbers system, which will then inevitably show his philosophical stance wrong. Is that a tragedy or a good thing? A punchline? Irony? Sadness? Does it tell us something about the futility of life?

[Iwannaplato]

Give it a few more decades and VA might develop a halfway usable FSKs-with-numbers system, which will then inevitably show his philosophical stance wrong. Is that a tragedy or a good thing? A punchline? Irony? Sadness? Does it tell us something about the futility of life?

Maybe as responders we could do a kind of evaluation.
Does VA really think he can come up with multiply decimal placed numbers for the accuracy/objectivity/empiricalness of various fields of inquiry
or
does he probably realize it was not very grounded but can't manage to admit it?

Once we have made our guess about it, we can drop issues where we think he's merely digging in because he never wants to admit he's wrong...here.
And we can continue to criticize issues where we think he's actually sure he's right.

I admit it is mindreading.

But actually I see nothing in his main arguments that depends on having these numbers. I don't think the idea that there are degrees is a silly one. It's just the numbers, and such exact ones. And the contradictions with other estimates he's made before, and then the silliness of that list of rather abstract criteria somehow being used to come up with such exact numbers.

I mean, how many times are we willing to point out, in new paraphrases, silliness that he probably isn't really invested in (though he may not realize it yet)?

[Atla]

Give it a few more decades and VA might develop a halfway usable FSKs-with-numbers system, which will then inevitably show his philosophical stance wrong. Is that a tragedy or a good thing? A punchline? Irony? Sadness? Does it tell us something about the futility of life?

Maybe as responders we could do a kind of evaluation.
Does VA really think he can come up with multiply decimal placed numbers for the accuracy/objectivity/empiricalness of various fields of inquiry
or
does he probably realize it was not very grounded but can't manage to admit it?

Once we have made our guess about it, we can drop issues where we think he's merely digging in because he never wants to admit he's wrong...here.
And we can continue to criticize issues where we think he's actually sure he's right.

I admit it is mindreading.

But actually I see nothing in his main arguments that depends on having these numbers. I don't think the idea that there are degrees is a silly one. It's just the numbers, and such exact ones. And the contradictions with other estimates he's made before, and then the silliness of that list of rather abstract criteria somehow being used to come up with such exact numbers.

I mean, how many times are we willing to point out, in new paraphrases, silliness that he probably isn't really invested in (though he may not realize it yet)?

How I would do it is compare FSK-s to objective reality, but of course it's exactly objective reality that VA denies. For example some estimates:

physics 95%+
biology 85%
psychology 70%
astrology 30%
homeopathy <5%
numerology <5%