Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 3:06 am
Strawman.
That is the problem with dogmatic, narrow and shallow thinking.
or potentially poor communcation on your part or even you changing the way you word things all the time, when it is temporarily convenient. Or you just making stuff up now.
I have stated clearly, I am not establishing absolute numbers i.e. merely relative numbers to an agreed standard.
Yes, but you did more than that. You have also stated that it was based on actual percentages of qualities.
Look, I truly understand the idea of setting a standard and using 100 has advantages in base ten. Peachy. But you have also said it was an accurate measurement of the objectivity of the FSK, the accuracy, the empiricallness. Not that it was an arbritrary but useful number to use for a standard but a number that comes from your assessment of objective qualities of the field of inquiry. I quote some of the various confusions you've presented below. And they are not limited to these. You start so many damn threads on the same topic it is a real headache tracking down where you contradict yourself or have said something. I know, it works for you to flood us with threads on the same topic, and yes I even remember your reason for you considering it works.
Assigning science as the Standard and taking it at 100% objectivity does not in any way claim 'science is 100%' objective in the absolute sense.
LOL. Y
For example, if I set the standard height of humans AT PRESENT at 1.7 meter, I can assign 100% or 100/100 to that height.
If a person is 1.4 meter, that would be 82% of the standard.
If a person is 1.9 meter that would be 111.8*% of the standard.
* actually, 111.76470588235294117647058823529%
As so on.
In this case of setting the standard of 1.7 meter as 100%, I am not stating that 1.7 meter is the maximum height of humans or in any absolute sense.
I mean, Jesus Christ!!!!????.
Your examples are always with utterly measurable aspects of things. Which has very little to do with giving ratings to a whole field of inquiry.
But let's say you are correct in talking about the standard in this way. The moment you jump to another field of inquiry or FSK and assign it a number you are pulling numbers out of your ass.
And this is clear because you never, ever show the steps to coming to the number. It is always your intuition.
Similarly, when I set Science as the Standard at 100% objectivity, it is merely a reference point and not to be taken as absolute.
The only judgment is that the science FSK is the most credible and objective [based on an agreed set of criteria] AT PRESENT. It is possible humanity might be able to come up with some FSK that is more credible and objective [not absolute] than science.
The rest of the post is all strawmanning. I will not be bothered to defend.
Of course, because you'd have to show steps. and you can't because there aren't any. There are just assertions.
In your example with height we could show the measurements with height and show the math. Show exactly what the criterion is which instantly creates a number for comparison.
So, perhaps you will listen to Chatgpt's suggestions or perhaps not.
I have already adopted ChatGpt's suggestions re the above in my approach and views.
[/quote]No, you haven't. YOu have not let them influence in the least what Chatgpt suggests one should do in relation to others. You insult dissent. You mind read dissent. You cannot collaborate. Not so far and not openly.
Here's some examples of where you are all over the place with your Standard:
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].
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.
That's not clear communication.
If we assign the scientific FSK as the standard at 99.99% [99.99% empirical]
See, it's not just a standard assigned 100 for the sake of comparison. You assigned it a number based on your assessment of the degree of something objective.
And there are more ways you have phrased this with different numbers and different criteria for the standard with sloppy sentences. Sometimes it is a mere assignment of 100 as a convenient number as a standard, at other times it is the measure of something like the degree of empiricalness, sometimes it is worded in other ways to make it seem like some other criterion is being used.
And yet the only fucking interpretation you can come up with is that I am strawmanning. I mean, I actually read your posts. Do you?
I mean, at least you could have the fucking humility to consider, and reading your own posts will show this, that you may not be communicating consistantly or clearly. And that's a charitable interpretation on my part. The less charitable is that you keep chaning horses midstream when the inconvenience of what you've already said becomes apparant.
But, as I said, above, even if we grant the new way you are wording the way you have assigned 100 to science, it does not explain the many decimal places for other fields of inquiry. You do not show the steps, you simply make claims. And your evaluations, for example for realism, miraculously fit your desires. Despite your position on objectivity being intersubjectivity and the majority of scientists being realists, and you assigning Science the standard for FSKs, you somehow can rate realism a zero. This is disingenousness at a temper tantrum posing as logical level.
You're accusations of strawmanning usually conflate pointing out what your position entails with attributing that as a conclusion you have stated. Here it just means
'I, VA; don't like what you said cause I don't even read my own posts well and consider AT ALL that I might be confusing my readers or even contradicting myself in what is not my native language.' It's too much to hope you might have some self-awareness.
And in no way are you exhibiting the interpersonl and process suggestions Chatgpt made. Not a tiny bit.
Why has no antirealist in the world become the least bit interested in your work? They're easy to contast and if they find something interesting, they respond.