Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a QUICKIE on the relevant Criteria in assessing the rating the Credibility & Objectivity of a human-based FSK. There may be relevant and additional criteria.
I have listed the main ones somewhere, this is an unorganized list of criteria.
I will categorized them accordingly later as some may be repetitions.

All of reality, facts, truths, knowledge and their descriptions must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
To assess the credibility and objectivity of each FSR-FSK, each must be rated within ALL the listed criteria below.

Each criteria will be rated on the basis of 1 [low] and 100[high]. If not applicable it will be rated "0".
Each criteria must also we weighted, all totaling 1.00.

The resulting total of all the criteria will be the degrees of reliability and objectivity for each of the FSK. [easily done in Excel]

As a starter it is intuitive guessed [roughly based on the empirical evidence criteria] that the Scientific FSK [at its best] will be the STANDARD and assigned 100% as a convenience [not absolute] to contrast with the other FSK. The Theological FSK is rated at 0.01%
see: viewtopic.php?p=674724#p674724

• Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
  A Constitution - explicit or implied.
  Empirical evidence – direct/ secondary; weightage 0.75/1.00
  Scientific method
  Qualify assumptions & limitations
  Verifiability
  Ethical neutrality
  Systematic exploration
  Testability
  Falsifiability
  Reliability
  Precision
  Repeatability - [a sub of reliability]
  Accuracy - validity
  Abstractness
  Predictability/ predictive power
  Rely on scientific facts
  Peer review
  Rationality and critical thinking
  Internal consistency:
  Explanatory power
  Predictiveness / predictive power
  Paradigm shifts
  Tentativeness, provisional
  Theory construction and
  Hypothesis testing
  Intolerant of contradictory evidence
  Natural- scientific models, laws, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomena
  Natural or Metaphysical
  Systematic evidence approach
  Rigorous
  Purposive – clear goal in mind
  Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
  Operational definitions
  Uncertainty – certainty
  Logical arguments

Any one has additional features to add re assessing the credibility and objectivity of a human-based specific FSK?

Views?? Discuss??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes 2: KIV

[Atla]

Notes 2: KIV

As the stakes grow, so does the number of placeholders. I wonder how many we're going to have in a few years' time?

[FlashDangerpants]

Each criteria will be rated on the basis of 1 [low] and 100[high]. If not applicable it will be rated "0".

By just making up numbers.

[Iwannaplato]

Here is a QUICKIE on the relevant Criteria in assessing the rating the Credibility & Objectivity of a human-based FSK. There may be relevant and additional criteria.
I have listed the main ones somewhere, this is an unorganized list of criteria.
I will categorized them accordingly later as some may be repetitions.

All of reality, facts, truths, knowledge and their descriptions must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
To assess the credibility and objectivity of each FSR-FSK, each must be rated within ALL the listed criteria below.

Each criteria will be rated on the basis of 1 [low] and 100[high]. If not applicable it will be rated "0".
Each criteria must also we weighted, all totaling 1.00.

The resulting total of all the criteria will be the degrees of reliability and objectivity for each of the FSK. [easily done in Excel]

As a starter it is intuitive guessed [roughly based on the empirical evidence criteria] that the Scientific FSK [at its best] will be the STANDARD and assigned 100% as a convenience [not absolute] to contrast with the other FSK. The Theological FSK is rated at 0.01%
see: viewtopic.php?p=674724#p674724

• Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
  Empirical evidence – direct/ secondary; weightage 0.75/1.00
  Scientific method
  Qualify assumptions & limitations
  Verifiability
  Ethical neutrality
  Systematic exploration
  Testability
  Falsifiability
  Reliability
  Precision
  Repeatability - reliability
  Accuracy - validity
  Abstractness
  Predictability/ predictive power
  Rely on scientific facts
  Peer review
  Rationality and critical thinking
  Internal consistency:
  Explanatory power
  Predictiveness / predictive power
  Paradigm shifts
  Tentativeness, provisional
  Theory construction and
  Hypothesis testing
  Intolerant of contradictory evidence
  Natural- scientific models, law
  s, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomenaNatural or Metaphysical
  Systematic evidence approach
  Rigorous
  Purposive – clear goal in mind
  Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
  Operational definitions
  Uncertainty – certainty
  Logical arguments

Any one has additional features to add re assessing the credibility and objectivity of a human-based specific FSK?

Views?? Discuss??

Use those criteria and show us how you would come up with a number for the History FSK's credibility. Please detail how each of the various categories translates into numbers when evaluating History.

And notice that particle physics, for example, would be way, way under the 99.99% given to science in general, given it is entirely indirect empiricism. Which would mean it would be less credible compared with many other sciences. Further VA's support for antirealism has come partly from indirect empiricism via physics.

Elsewhere he says...

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].

That's making numbers up. Please use the list of criteria above and show us the math in steps. Generally you just show the final figure. Any math problem or scientific paper is going to show steps when producing numbers. Show us the steps that here come to 50 and 80.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a QUICKIE on the relevant Criteria in assessing the rating the Credibility & Objectivity of a human-based FSK. There may be relevant and additional criteria.
I have listed the main ones somewhere, this is an unorganized list of criteria.
I will categorized them accordingly later as some may be repetitions.

All of reality, facts, truths, knowledge and their descriptions must be conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
To assess the credibility and objectivity of each FSR-FSK, each must be rated within ALL the listed criteria below.

Each criteria will be rated on the basis of 1 [low] and 100[high]. If not applicable it will be rated "0".
Each criteria must also we weighted, all totaling 1.00.

The resulting total of all the criteria will be the degrees of reliability and objectivity for each of the FSK. [easily done in Excel]

As a starter it is intuitive guessed [roughly based on the empirical evidence criteria] that the Scientific FSK [at its best] will be the STANDARD and assigned 100% as a convenience [not absolute] to contrast with the other FSK. The Theological FSK is rated at 0.01%
see: viewtopic.php?p=674724#p674724

• Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
  Empirical evidence – direct/ secondary; weightage 0.75/1.00
  Scientific method
  Qualify assumptions & limitations
  Verifiability
  Ethical neutrality
  Systematic exploration
  Testability
  Falsifiability
  Reliability
  Precision
  Repeatability - reliability
  Accuracy - validity
  Abstractness
  Predictability/ predictive power
  Rely on scientific facts
  Peer review
  Rationality and critical thinking
  Internal consistency:
  Explanatory power
  Predictiveness / predictive power
  Paradigm shifts
  Tentativeness, provisional
  Theory construction and
  Hypothesis testing
  Intolerant of contradictory evidence
  Natural- scientific models, law
  s, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomenaNatural or Metaphysical
  Systematic evidence approach
  Rigorous
  Purposive – clear goal in mind
  Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
  Operational definitions
  Uncertainty – certainty
  Logical arguments

Any one has additional features to add re assessing the credibility and objectivity of a human-based specific FSK?

Views?? Discuss??

Use those criteria and show us how you would come up with a number for the History FSK's credibility. Please detail how each of the various categories translates into numbers when evaluating History.

And notice that particle physics, for example, would be way, way under the 99.99% given to science in general, given it is entirely indirect empiricism. Which would mean it would be less credible compared with many other sciences. Further VA's support for antirealism has come partly from indirect empiricism via physics.

Elsewhere he says...

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].

That's making numbers up. Please use the list of criteria above and show us the math in steps. Generally you just show the final figure. Any math problem or scientific paper is going to show steps when producing numbers. Show us the steps that here come to 50 and 80.

I have problem posting an Excel File in this forum.
You can easily do that via Excel yourself.
You will definitely come up with a resultant which is subject to a consensus with "experts" and others of how you arrive at the rating.

I suggest you refer to the present judging of gymnastics competition Methodology in the Olympics and other international competition.
Give a summary of what you understand from the above principles and process of awarding grading by each judge.
These days, it is rarely to see a gymnastic judge giving a blatant bias grading of 3/10 where the others are giving grades around 8-9/10 because they have removed as much subjective and personal opinions as possible.

Would you deny,
that Simon Biles is the 2023 Individual All-Around Champion at the 2023 world Gymnastic championships as an objective sporting fact but ONLY as conditioned upon the International Gymnastics Federation FSK?
Agree?

Would conclude the judges are making up numbers?

[FlashDangerpants]

And yet there is a very obvious way in which the scoring system for the swimming races which are measured with accuracy of tenths of a second are of a different type than the scoring in the dancing with a ribbon event where the numbvers are systemtically fabricated, not in any way measured.


Measuerment of physical properties. Objectivity.
Made up numbers. Subjectivity.
Lots of people making up the broadly simliar numbers following a set of rules.... Methodical subjectivity with subjective rules and subjective numbers.

[Iwannaplato]

And yet there is a very obvious way in which the scoring system for the swimming races which are measured with accuracy of tenths of a second are of a different type than the scoring in the dancing with a ribbon event where the numbvers are systemtically fabricated, not in any way measured.


Measuerment of physical properties. Objectivity.
Made up numbers. Subjectivity.
Lots of people making up the broadly simliar numbers following a set of rules.... Methodical subjectivity with subjective rules and subjective numbers.

And then beyond the subjective vs. objective difference, there is the trouble of coming up with numbers for some evaluations that can be objective. I think we could argue that checking the logic of the conclusions of a specific biological research article would be objective. But to evaluate a field of inquiry related to the criterion 'logical' would just be making up numbers. Getting a number for History, Law, Sociology and so on would be....making up a number. Let alone coming up a number for the sum total of his list of criteria, often overlapping and redundant criteria. I could weigh in with some loose adjectives on the degree of logic, objectivity, peer review and so on might be possible, but numbers with decimal places is just silly. This doesn't mean the evaluation would be merely subjective. I think one could evaluate history with some objectivity around those criteria, but it's not a number thing.

[FlashDangerpants]

And yet there is a very obvious way in which the scoring system for the swimming races which are measured with accuracy of tenths of a second are of a different type than the scoring in the dancing with a ribbon event where the numbvers are systemtically fabricated, not in any way measured.


Measuerment of physical properties. Objectivity.
Made up numbers. Subjectivity.
Lots of people making up the broadly simliar numbers following a set of rules.... Methodical subjectivity with subjective rules and subjective numbers.

And then beyond the subjective vs. objective difference, there is the trouble of coming up with numbers for some evaluations that can be objective. I think we could argue that checking the logic of the conclusions of a specific biological research article would be objective. But to evaluate a field of inquiry related to the criterion 'logical' would just be making up numbers. Getting a number for History, Law, Sociology and so on would be....making up a number. Let alone coming up a number for the sum total of his list of criteria, often overlapping and redundant criteria. I could weigh in with some loose adjectives on the degree of logic, objectivity, peer review and so on might be possible, but numbers with decimal places is just silly. This doesn't mean the evaluation would be merely subjective. I think one could evaluate history with some objectivity around those criteria, but it's not a number thing.

I think there is a subtle change in testing methodology at work here. It looks a lot like the Man on the Clapham Omnibus has enterred the chat.

• We can say that some information is objective in a strict sense if it relates to the properties of an object (length, beam, displacement, location speed and heading it it's a ship for instance).

• In a looser sense we can say that something is objectively a red square if it reflects light of a certain wavelength that would tend to inspire a sensation of redness in an observer (secondary properties).

• In a vernacular sense, we talk conversationally of objectivity when we just mean that a bunch of reasonable seeming men would agree that such and such is so.

It's the same way that lawyers arrive at a description of what is reasonable to believe when they are arguing a case before the courts. REcently it has been argued that no reasonableperson would believe Sydney Powell's insane Kraken rantings, and indeed only Walker did, which proves a sort of a point. But it doesn't discuss that which is the product of strictly reasoned argument in the philosophical sense.

So yeah, we could assemble as reasonable gentlemen with glasses of port and boxes of cigars for a convivial evening of rational objective judgment. If we exclude Immanuel Can from the conversation onthe basis of bias or lack of expertise, then we can agree perhaps that the Bible is a bad source of factual information. Maybe we can award the Bible a rating of 27 turds out of 50 for inspirational quality, and 15 spanners out of 64 for usefulness as a weapon. And if everyone in the chat agrees that everyone there is sensible, then that's apparently an FSK. But when the club ends, and everyone has gone home, none of it was real.

[Skepdick]

• In a vernacular sense, we talk conversationally of objectivity when we just mean that a bunch of reasonable seeming men would agree that such and such is so.

You keep smuggling in selection criteria, my guy.

Given a mob of a million people - please tell us how to pick out the "reasonable seeming men".

Given a bunch of "reasonable seeming men" who do you think they would pick out to be "reasonable seeming men" out of a large cohort of people?

It's the same way that lawyers arrive at a description of what is reasonable to believe when they are arguing a case before the courts.

You do realize that the USA justice system allows for a different standard of "reasonableness", right?

What's "reasonable" to 6-12 randoms off the street without any training in evaluating/weighing evidence isn't the same sort or "reasonable" as the evaluations of a judge with 30+ years of legal experience.

[Atla]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rating things btw, but it goes both ways. I'll give VA's philosophy say a 3/10, where I would consider 7.5/10 as "good". After years of hard work he hasn't managed to improve at all on that score imo.

But that doesn't matter, VA's philosophy was presumably also rated by others, after which he presumably had to buy a bigger cabinet for all the rejection letters. That's why he's still talking to us muppets instead of taking off already.

[Iwannaplato]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rating things btw, but it goes both ways. I'll give VA's philosophy say a 3/10, where I would consider 7.5/10 as "good". After years of hard work he hasn't managed to improve at all on that score imo.

Yes, if we ran it through that list of criteria he uses to justify FSKs it would be very hard to pin down a number, but it would also be very hard for VA to object to, for example, your assessment.

But that doesn't matter, VA's philosophy was presumably also rated by others, after which he presumably had to buy a bigger cabinet for all the rejection letters. That's why he's still talking to us muppets instead of taking off already.

Yes, I'm not sure the point of discussing it with philosophical gnats when it would really be quite easy to get email addresses (often on university and company websites) of, for example, non- and antirealists he respects. He couldn't send them a mass of texts, but some would respond to shorter forays and if his work has any value (to people he respects and who have no evolutionary defaults making them unfairly critical) they ought to get interested.

His goal, it seems to actually go forth with his hypotheses. How discussing things with philosophical gnats could possibly compete with communication with experts he admires (and flings at us), is hard to imagine. And of course he'd have to take their criticism (and utter disinterest) more seriously then anyone here.

I wonder how much he's mulled over Ethical Neutrality being a valuable trait. He isn't ethically neutral nor is his FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rating things btw, but it goes both ways. I'll give VA's philosophy say a 3/10, where I would consider 7.5/10 as "good". After years of hard work he hasn't managed to improve at all on that score imo.

Yes, if we ran it through that list of criteria he uses to justify FSKs it would be very hard to pin down a number, but it would also be very hard for VA to object to, for example, your assessment.

The above can be done easily in an objective manner.

First state all the rules.
List down the list of criteria and weightages for acceptance by all members.
Based on the criteria, explain what comprised of the ideal standard at 10/10.
E.g. the criteria to be accepted could be, say,
1. The scope, range of philosophy covered, e.g. Eastern, Western, etc.
2. The subjects covered within 1 above.
3. Number of philosophical books read, incl. the critical texts.
4. Test scores taken at regular periods.
5. Acceptance by peers.
6. There will be many criteria which has to be accepted by all who wish to be rated within this criteria.

When all the above is filled in, there will be a resultant score against the standard at 10/10.

With the above, there will be many different sets of criteria and each member will accept their rating based on the transparency of the rules and criteria.

However, in the case for the credibility and objectivity of science and various knowledge, it will not be difficult for rational and critical thinkers* to agreed to one set of criteria.
Theists, mystics [mysticism] and those into pseudo-sciences will not agree with the set agreeable by rational and critical thinkers.

Btw, what I proposed is for the future when there is a sufficient critical mass of people with reasonable rationality and critical thinking.
It is not likely to materialize at present because the majority [>80 up to 90%] are irrational theists at present and most of the rest prefer to talk shit [as evident there and out there] than taking philosophy more seriously.

[FlashDangerpants]

Theists, mystics [mysticism] and those into pseudo-sciences will not agree with the set agreeable by rational and critical thinkers.

You are using sciencey words to make make a non-scientific branch of enquiry - that doesn't use actual scientific methods - sound a bit like a sciency one, so that you can call it a "near-equivalent" of sciences... you are manufacturing pseudo-sciences.