Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable

[Veritas Aequitas]

When I made the claim re the OP, I often get queried why the Scientific facts, truths and knowledge are the most credible and reliable.

By now 2023, I believe it is common knowledge for any one who is rational to accept the above without doubts even given that Science has its own weaknesses and limitations.

When I claim scientific [also mathematics] facts are the most credible and reliable in terms of credibility, reliability & Objectivity to contrast to non-scientific facts, I am comparing the best of the best of their results.

To compare credibility we can use the following criteria to rate each field of knowledge, i.e. Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness

To the above I would add "utility" and contribution to the well-being of humanity taking into account its potential dangers as well.

To evaluate and compare the credibility, reliability and objectivity, we will prepare a proper format to list down all the relevant criteria with appropriate weightings.
The FSK that has the highest score would have the highest credibility, reliability, and objectivity.

I have not come across a prepared computation, but intuitively based on present knowledge and views, I predict Science [or mathematics] will come up as the top two.

Any one who disagrees with my prediction, name me which non-science FSKs that would have a higher degree of credibility, reliability and objectivity than Science or mathematics?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a useful suggestion from Alexander_Reiswich
viewtopic.php?p=623537#p623537
which can be used as a basis to evaluate the credibility, reliability and objective of any FSK.

In any case, I would like to present you with a list of criteria which I believe to be required to evaluate the truth value of a theory. Perhaps you can let me know if this is what you have in mind when you refer to the "science FSK", or if you disagree with some of these points:

- internal consistency: whether a theory is logically sound and none of its propositions contradict one another. If this criterion is not met, a theory is considered false (not "subjective"). As such, it is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a theory to be considered truthful

- explanatory power: how much sense a theory can make of the available data. Ideally, a theory should account for all existing values in a data set. The less data that it can explain, the lower its explanatory power. A theory must have at least some explanatory power, as otherwise it would be useless ("esoteric")

- predictiveness / predictive power: how accurately empirical observations align with the predictions of the theory, as well as how much predictive capability it provides. A theory which offers no predictive power is not necessarily false, but lower quality and less useful

- testability & falsifiability: how feasible it is to come up with tests to invalidate the theory. Any theory must provide methods by which it can be disproved. The degree to which attempts to disprove it fail is the degree to which certainty of the theories validity is increased. A theory which is not falsifiable can be said to have no discernible relationship to observed reality, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it

- replicability: how consistently the theory can be reproduced or applied with the predicted results. Ideally, a theory should reliably lead to the same conclusions / results given the same input and conditions. The degree to which this is not the case represents the theories unreliability / inadequacy

A theory which meets all these criteria can be considered valid, but in order to be considered truthful, it must be exhaustively tested based on these different considerations.

Based on this understanding, it seems to me that there are a number of distinct "maturity grades" which a theory can reach:

• 1) verification of internal consistency (logical analysis)
  
  2) testing (comparing predictions against data, explaining observations, attempts to falsify, etc.)
  
  3) independent confirmation of test results (iteration, peer review, expert consensus, etc.)

It's important to understand that this process is designed to establish our certainty regarding the quality of the theory. In this way, it's possible, in principle, to establish with a high degree of certainty ("objectivity") that a theory is useless, inconsistent and / or contradictory. In other words, the "objectivity" derived by this process is not a property of the theory itself, but only of our evaluation of the theory. We must therefore be careful not to conflate the "objectivity" of our evaluation with the "objectivity" of the theory itself.

Now, given that there are at least three distinct grades regarding the evaluation of a theory, there are at least 9 logically possible states of evaluation that a theory can be in at any given time (if we assume that a particular grade can either be met, not yet met, or failed):

• A) no grade is met -> unknown
  
  B) first grade failed -> unsound
  
  C) only first grade is met -> sound, but untested
  
  D) first grade met, second failed -> sound, but presumably invalid / inapplicable
  
  E) first grade met, second failed, third failed -> sound, but initial testing confirmed to be flawed
  
  F) first grade met, second failed, third met -> sound, but confirmed to be invalid / inapplicable
  
  G) first grade met and second grade met -> sound and presumably valid
  
  H) first grade met, second met, third failed -> sound, but initial testing confirmed to be invalid / inapplicable
  
  I) first grade met, second met, third met -> sound, valid and confirmed to be consistently reliable

If I understand you correctly, you would only qualify state I) as "objective". Can you confirm?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I asked ChatGPT, here is the common knowledge:

Science, together with mathematics, is a highly credible and reliable source of facts, truths, and knowledge about the natural world. This is because science relies on systematic observation, experimentation, and rigorous testing of hypotheses, which allows scientists to make objective and evidence-based claims about the world.

Scientific knowledge is also subject to a rigorous process of peer review, in which other scientists review and scrutinize the methods and results of scientific studies before they are published in reputable scientific journals. This helps to ensure that scientific claims are accurate, reliable, and can be reproduced by other researchers.

In contrast, non-scientific knowledge, such as history, politics, and legal knowledge, relies more on interpretation and subjective analysis of information. While these fields can provide valuable insights into human behavior, culture, and society, they may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of evidence and testing as scientific knowledge.

It's worth noting, however, that there are limits to what science can tell us. While science is very good at explaining natural phenomena and making predictions based on empirical data, it may not be well-suited to answering questions about values, ethics, and subjective experiences. In these cases, we may need to rely on other sources of knowledge, such as philosophy, ethics, and the humanities.

In summary, while science is a highly credible and reliable source of knowledge about the natural world, it's important to recognize the limitations of scientific inquiry and to use a range of sources and disciplines to gain a more complete understanding of the world.

[FlashDangerpants]

The stuff written by Vagianl Albatross reads like it was written by faulty robot constructed from plumbing supplies, while the chatGPT bit is really quite close to human, seeing as how it just went out into the interwibblies and copy pasta'd a bunch of obvious stuff that's been written a fuckton of times.

VA has failed the turing test, somebody switch him off please.

[Iwannaplato]

The stuff written by Vagianl Albatross reads like it was written by faulty robot constructed from plumbing supplies, while the chatGPT bit is really quite close to human, seeing as how it just went out into the interwibblies and copy pasta'd a bunch of obvious stuff that's been written a fuckton of times.

VA has failed the turing test, somebody switch him off please.

I asked chatGPT if the Moon exists if no one is looking at it, since this is the new authority to appeal to it seems, in this thread, at least....
Here's what it said...

Yes, the Moon exists whether or not anyone is looking at it. The Moon is a physical object that exists independently of human perception or observation. It has a measurable mass, size, and gravitational influence on other objects in space. Even if all human beings were to disappear, the Moon would still exist and continue to orbit the Earth according to the laws of physics.

The question of whether objects exist when they are not being observed is a topic of debate in philosophy and physics. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that the act of observation can have an impact on the behavior of subatomic particles, leading to the idea that reality may be observer-dependent in some way. However, these interpretations are limited to the realm of the very small and do not apply to larger objects like the Moon.

I also asked it the following question...
In an online forum, should you start new threads that are on the same topic as previous threads every time you have a new line of argument?

In general, it is not necessary to start a new thread on an online forum every time you have a new line of argument on the same topic as a previous thread. Instead, it is generally more effective to continue the discussion within the existing thread, adding your new argument to the existing conversation.

Starting a new thread on the same topic can result in fragmented discussions and make it difficult for other forum members to follow the conversation. It can also be seen as a form of spamming, and may be against the rules or etiquette of the forum.

If you do have a new line of argument that you feel is distinct from the existing thread, you may consider starting a new thread, but it is important to make sure that your argument is not simply a repetition of points already made in the original thread. Additionally, you should make sure that you are following the rules and etiquette of the forum, which may have specific guidelines about when it is appropriate to start a new thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The following can be used to establish valid criteria to evaluate the scientific FSK in comparison to other FSKs;

Development of a Framework for the Culture of Scientific Research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715786/

[Iwannaplato]

The following can be used to establish valid criteria to evaluate the scientific FSK in comparison to other FSKs;

Development of a Framework for the Culture of Scientific Research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715786/

So, is this an FSK? What's it's name? How do we validate this FSK?
Is it better than science?

Re;
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39878

[Flannel Jesus]

What about a meta meta FSK? An FSK to judge FSKs that judge FSKs?

Maybe there needs to be a recursive FSK that can judge itself

[Iwannaplato]

What about a meta meta FSK? An FSK to judge FSKs that judge FSKs?

Maybe there needs to be a recursive FSK that can judge itself

We've got those. Many people use one to judge the others and they judge the one they use the best. The recursive FSK is them.

[Flannel Jesus]

What about a meta meta FSK? An FSK to judge FSKs that judge FSKs?

Maybe there needs to be a recursive FSK that can judge itself

We've got those. Many people use one to judge the others and they judge the one they use the best. The recursive FSK is them.

Okay so humans-as-fsks, great, so consider this:

Every human-as-fsk that's even remotely reasonable should at some point have a doubt if they're doing a good job in that role, if their patterns of thought are as good as they think they are or hope them to be (any human fsk that isn't completely useless must have this doubt some of the time) -

So, what fsk could such a human use when they doubt their own self-fsk? And how could you convince any human with any variety of fsk that this other fsk to judge your self-fsk is worth listening to?

[Iwannaplato]

Okay so humans-as-fsks, great, so consider this:

Every human-as-fsk that's even remotely reasonable should at some point have a doubt if they're doing a good job in that role, if their patterns of thought are as good as they think they are or hope them to be (any human fsk that isn't completely useless must have this doubt some of the time) -

So, what fsk could such a human use when they doubt their own self-fsk? And how could you convince any human with any variety of fsk that this other fsk to judge your self-fsk is worth listening to?

They gotta respect your ass.
Intuition MUST be involved.
And that's a scary thing.
What works for some, will not work for others.
We want that rule that works for all of us.
So, no intuition. Cause we know intuition can be good in one person and bad in another. And then in any individual good about some things, bad about others. (introspective abilities a part of this intuition also).
No one wants to admit that intuition is a significant factor in the thinking, apriori, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What about a meta meta FSK? An FSK to judge FSKs that judge FSKs?

Maybe there needs to be a recursive FSK that can judge itself

Intuitively, the scientific FSK [despites its warts and all] is the most credible and reliable FSK at present. The next best is Mathematics.
Do you think the theological FSK, astrological FSK, is more credible than the scientific FSK?
What about the legal, historical, political, social, economics, financial, etc. are they more credible than the scientific FSK.

The Statistical FSK to process ranking.
Given all FSKs has weaknesses, in this case, we compare the best performance of each FSK.
To be more objective the ranking of the Scientific FSK against all other FSKs can be done using a ranking table of credibility and reliability based on the various criteria mentioned above their ratings and giving the appropriate weightages.
This can be done using statistic sampling methods with higher degree of details, rigor and care.
Are you familiar with this?

Take for example the criteria of testability and repeatability with sameness of results.
Surely, out of 10 we should give the scientific FSK a rating say 9.5/10 while the theological FSK a rating of 0.01/10.

We don't have to have an absolute ranking table, but rather different tables with different variations and details of the criteria.
Most likely the scientific FSK will come up on top [at least intuitively in the absence of real ranking done].

In a way, we will use the statistics FSK to determine the credibility and reliability of individual FSKs.

[Iwannaplato]

What about a meta meta FSK? An FSK to judge FSKs that judge FSKs?

Maybe there needs to be a recursive FSK that can judge itself

Intuitively, the scientific FSK [despites its warts and all] is the most credible and reliable FSK at present. The next best is Mathematics.
Do you think the theological FSK, astrological FSK, is more credible than the scientific FSK?

Appeal to incredultiy. Cherry picking fallacy in the examples.

The Statistical FSK to process ranking.
Given all FSKs has weaknesses, in this case, we compare the best performance of each FSK.
To be more objective the ranking of the Scientific FSK against all other FSKs can be done using a ranking table of credibility and reliability based on the various criteria mentioned above their ratings and giving the appropriate weightages.
This can be done using statistic sampling methods with higher degree of details, rigor and care.
Are you familiar with this?

Take for example the criteria of testability and repeatability with sameness of results.
Surely, out of 10 we should give the scientific FSK a rating say 9.5/10 while the theological FSK a rating of 0.01/10.

So, without any procces but guesswork he assigns numbers, no less, based on a vague FSK, statistical analysis, which he has never used.

IOW his intuition is the meta-FSK.

We don't have to have an absolute ranking table, but rather different tables with different variations and details of the criteria.
Most likely the scientific FSK will come up on top [at least intuitively in the absence of real ranking done].

And then he admits it is intuition.

In a way, we will use the statistics FSK to determine the credibility and reliability of individual FSKs.

So based on analyses that will be done in the future, he draws conclusions now.

It's like the oracle at Delphi.

[FlashDangerpants]

What about a meta meta FSK? An FSK to judge FSKs that judge FSKs?

Maybe there needs to be a recursive FSK that can judge itself

We've got those. Many people use one to judge the others and they judge the one they use the best. The recursive FSK is them.

Okay so humans-as-fsks, great, so consider this:

Every human-as-fsk that's even remotely reasonable should at some point have a doubt if they're doing a good job in that role, if their patterns of thought are as good as they think they are or hope them to be (any human fsk that isn't completely useless must have this doubt some of the time) -

So, what fsk could such a human use when they doubt their own self-fsk? And how could you convince any human with any variety of fsk that this other fsk to judge your self-fsk is worth listening to?

This is all addresessed by the Tractatus Logico FSKicuss. The World is the sum of all the FSKs and for every question that could or might exist there must be an FSK to provide an answer.

The line continues infinitely in both directions. New FSKs spawn for the purpose of regualting all FSKs (and the crucial assignment of credibility function that makes it all so completely objective). All FSKs are indefinetly divisible, as the Great Man Himself has already shown us by instantiating the Science/Physics/QuantumMechanics FSK.

Every question that can exist requires a credible FSK to provide an answer. The FlannelJesus/Beliefs/Fashion/Clothing/Hats FSK is credible as a source of information about whether you consider the Fez to be the most fun of all hats. It is noit a credible source of fact for whether IWP thinks those big Russian fur boxes look cooler.

But to answer the question of whether it is universal fact that the Fez is FUN, a credible FSK must be constructed (after which it becomes found) by an expert group of individuals who systematically list all the hats in the workld and then assign then fun scores (which isn't a made number if VA wills it that there is a 5% each way margin for error). After THAT process, we will know whether the FlannelJesus/Beliefs/Fashion/Clothing/Hats FSK is mistaken or not about the factual status of the funness of the Fez.

Musch of this is however best covered under the HUMANS/Beliefs/Fashion/Clothing/Hats FSK namespace, which now exists because the question has been asked.

[Impenitent]

fun with Fez?



-Imp