Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since this point is raised frequently, here is a separate thread to address the issue;

I don't misunderstand your argument. It's just fallacious. Your FSRC theory provides no basis for assessing the credibility, reliability or objectivity of a practice and discourse that produces knowledge - and so for comparing discourses - because your first premise is that all knowledge is within an FSRC.

And this is circular, because whatever FSRC 'produces' the knowledge that an FSRC is credible, reliable, etc - can't be self-authenticating or self-authorising. There is no 'master' FSRC above the fray of competing FSRCs - no way to show that astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack.

Here is the mature view [from AI {wR}] to the above problem;

Escaping Circularity:

Here are approaches to avoid circularity:

Non-Circular Foundation: Introduce a meta-framework (outside any specific FSK) that establishes basic principles for evaluating FSKs. This meta-framework could include things like:

• Internal consistency: The FSK doesn't lead to contradictions within itself.
  Explanatory power: The FSK explains a wide range of phenomena.
  Predictive ability: The FSK allows for predictions that can be tested.
  Openness to revision: The FSK allows for new evidence to change its structure.

Break the Circle; Escape Clause: Your proposed escape clause of making "knowledge of the credibility of FSKs" an exception is a reasonable approach. This acknowledges a meta-level knowledge that sits outside the specific FSK being used. This exemption acknowledges that evaluating frameworks themselves requires a different kind of knowledge, one that is more metacognitive (thinking about thinking). This metacognitive knowledge could be based on principles of logic, consistency, evidence-based reasoning, and broad societal acceptance.

Bootstrapping: You can think of establishing the credibility of scientific FSK as a bootstrapping process. Initially, we might rely on simpler frameworks or common-sense observations to evaluate different FSKs. These simpler frameworks might not be perfect, but they can provide a starting point. As we build scientific knowledge, we can refine our criteria for judging FSKs based on evidence, consistency, predictive power, etc.

Convergence: Scientific progress often involves convergence of evidence from multiple frameworks. While individual FSKs might have limitations, the convergence of results across different approaches strengthens the overall credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK.

Levels of Analysis: Another way to escape circularity is to consider levels of analysis. You could argue that basic observation and logic can provide some foundational knowledge (e.g., "the sky is blue") that serves as a starting point for building FSKs. This basic knowledge wouldn't rely on a specific FSK itself.

Here's a revised approach:
Start with a Basic Framework: Begin with a simple, common-sense framework to evaluate different FSKs.
Scientific FSK Emerges: Through observation, experimentation, and refinement, a scientific FSK emerges that demonstrates its effectiveness in explaining and predicting phenomena.
Credibility Through Convergence: The scientific FSK gains further credibility when its results converge with evidence from other independent frameworks.
This approach avoids circularity by acknowledging a starting point outside the specific FSKs and then building credibility through a cumulative process.

Additionally:
Be transparent about the limitations of any FSK, including the scientific one. No framework is perfect, but some are demonstrably better than others at explaining specific phenomena.

Classical Logic Limitations:
Classical logic may not be the best tool for this situation. FSKs are complex systems, and classical logic struggles with fuzzy boundaries and nuanced relationships. Consider exploring:

Fuzzy Logic: Allows for degrees of truth, more accurately reflecting the complexities of FSK evaluation.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge and its justification, which goes beyond the formal rules of classical logic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 So your FSRC theory can't explain why the natural sciences are the 'gold standard' for providing knowledge of reality. Your theory undermines or contradicts that claim.

I have explained the gold standard is based on criteria accepted by rational basis.

It amounts to using a model to assess models for their relative objectivity. There's no way out here. How can we assess the objectivity of those generally accepted criteria?

Assessing the relative credibility and objectivity is a very common exercise within humanity.
There is a methodology, processes and a list of generally accepted criteria.
The generally accepted criteria are honed based on experience and consensus within rational agents iteratively and dialectically.
There is no need to use any models to assess generally accepted criteria formally.

I provided this link but you did not bother to read;
Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

• 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

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Where circularity is not an issue;
viewtopic.php?t=40839

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Method of Rating Credibility and Objectivity of FSK using rationally & generally accepted criteria with weights;
Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41096

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no circularity if we start with a set of rational criteria and setting a standard therefrom to compare all other FSKs in terms of credibility and objectivity.

No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?

This is a waste of time.

Nah, you are just ignorant and banking on traditional logic without understanding its limitations. You think traditional logic is God?

Explain to me why what AI proposed above is not reasonable nor feasible
Do you understand how standards are set without reference to any prior standards?
Long ago, what is the standard 'foot' was simply referenced from someone's foot without any justification why that foot is chosen as the standard.
It is the same for all existing standards.

So it is the same of the use of a set of rational criteria that is generally accepted as a basis to assess the credibility and objective of each FSRC, model, paradigm and the like.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

This is a waste of time.

It is at your discretion.
It is like you are complaining quantum physics is a waste of time because you cannot understand it.

You are just like theists who refuse to understand [not agree with] the views of non-theists who counter them.

It is a great psychological threat and very painful [need to go through a cold turkey] for you to even try to understand [not necessary agree with] my antirealist views. I am not expecting and hopefully you remain the same.

No, the reason why this is a waste of time is that you either don't understand, or can't afford to acknowledge, the fundamental problem with your theory.

It is up to you to argued my theory is fundamentally wrong.
But how could you when the basis of your argument against mine is grounded on an illusion?
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
So far you have not provided any convincing counter to my point.
Do you understand [not agree with] my point?

You say that there's no reality outside a model of reality - an 'FSRC'. But then you say we can assess and compare the objectivity of models by applying 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

As an anti-realist I am opposing your claim that there is a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

The principle is a relative comparison can be done with anything [objectivity, any variable] as long as a fixed standard [gold or otherwise] is set.
You deny this?
If I use your height as the standard of a human height, then the other >8 billion person's height can be compared to your height as the standard as a relative %.
Or if an average height of humans at present is determined that can be used as a standard; but note will anyone question how the average height is obtained? no .. it is simply accepted and assumed a rational methodology has been applied.

Note the controversial IQ which was accepted and applied by many earlier but lately the rational basis of its criteria has been questioned. I believe IQ is still use in some limited ways with awareness of its limitations.

But so far, there is nothing fishy in using a set of rational criteria to assess the credibility and objective of FSRCs and using the highest rated as the standard, i.e. which as determined is the scientific FSRC [implicitly or explicitly]. I have merely it more explicit.

Then you list those criteria and refer to a methodology. And the criteria and methodology are all realist, in that they assume there is a reality against which we can assess and compare our models. And you say the natural sciences come out tops as 'the gold standard'.

This is absolutely wrong to insist all those criteria are realists.
All those criteria are human-based they cannot be in realist term, i.e. independent of humans.
As I had stated, your insistence that there is an independent reality against which we can assess and compare is grounded on an illusion.
In the case you are mirroring [as condemned by Rorty] a model against an independent external reality.

And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Again your ideological claim of a reality outside the model is fatuous and groundless.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Now, I think you just can't handle this explanation. I think you're intellectually unable to do so. So you lash out with slurs against those of us who try to explain where you go wrong. And it's a waste of time.

I only lash out as a tit for tat, e.g. to FDP.
Those who attack me without an intellectually basis [e.g. FDP] is due their psychological desperations to soothe their existential crisis.

I prefer to discuss amicably and amenable, and is prepared to trash out the issue as long as it takes [it provide a leverage for me to learn more; btw, I hope you will not agree with me] in an intellectual and philosophical mode.
The only critique I had on you is your shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking which is intellectually related. This critique is not lashing out.

That is why I suggest it is critical you read the following;
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
to understand my fundamental [substance] principles which are similar therein,
but note, I do not agree with all the forms therein.
The related thread here;
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

It is a serious call, sacrifice some time and you will understand [not agree with] my position more clearly.
Please confirm you have read and understood [not agree with] it.

The related threads:
Relativism about Logic
Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism
Social Constructivism
Conceptual Relativism

Also give a summary of what you understand from the above.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

Also do you understand why you are so dogmatic with your narrow and shallow philosophical views?
Clue: evolutionary, history of Western Philosophy, analytic philosophy, Anglo-American ideology,