What's the meta-FSK?

[Iwannaplato]

I used VA's terminology since it was in reaction to his posts that I began mulling this in a different way.
VA has evaluated the various FSK's and has said science has the best or most accurate one.
So, what FSK compares the various FSKs and decides on the order from most accurate or dependable to least? It would seem problematic to use science to evaluate FSKs and decide that science's FSK is the best, or?

And while this is a response to VA, I think it is an issue for everyone. We are all eclectic, I think, whether we want to be or not.
How do we decide which to use and which to trust?
Do we only believe things (or try to only believe things) that the FSK we think is the best supports? Or do we remain agnostic or disbelieving when our favored or best FSK does not support (which is different from disproves)?

And what is your meta-FSK?

And doesn't intuition have to have a strong role in navigating all this?

[Skepdick]

I used VA's terminology since it was in reaction to his posts that I began mulling this in a different way.
VA has evaluated the various FSK's and has said science has the best or most accurate one.
So, what FSK compares the various FSKs and decides on the order from most accurate or dependable to least? It would seem problematic to use science to evaluate FSKs and decide that science's FSK is the best, or?

And while this is a response to VA, I think it is an issue for everyone. We are all eclectic, I think, whether we want to be or not.
How do we decide which to use and which to trust?
Do we only believe things (or try to only believe things) that the FSK we think is the best supports? Or do we remain agnostic or disbelieving when our favored or best FSK does not support (which is different from disproves)?

And what is your meta-FSK?

And doesn't intuition have to have a strong role in navigating all this?

Morality, of course.

You don't need science in order to be alive, but you need to stay alive in order to do science.

In the words of William James "Truth is what's good in the way of belief"; and in the words of Rorty "there is no epistemological difference between truth about what ought to be and truth about what is, nor any metaphysical difference between facts and values, nor any methodological difference between morality and science"

Species who do figure out how the world works and exploit it to their advantage seem to fare better in terms of natural selection. That is, unless they self-destruct.

[Eodnhoj7]

I used VA's terminology since it was in reaction to his posts that I began mulling this in a different way.
VA has evaluated the various FSK's and has said science has the best or most accurate one.
So, what FSK compares the various FSKs and decides on the order from most accurate or dependable to least? It would seem problematic to use science to evaluate FSKs and decide that science's FSK is the best, or?

And while this is a response to VA, I think it is an issue for everyone. We are all eclectic, I think, whether we want to be or not.
How do we decide which to use and which to trust?
Do we only believe things (or try to only believe things) that the FSK we think is the best supports? Or do we remain agnostic or disbelieving when our favored or best FSK does not support (which is different from disproves)?

And what is your meta-FSK?

And doesn't intuition have to have a strong role in navigating all this?

FSKs are relative and as relative are illusions as they are true in one context but false in another or entirely true and false at the same time when looking at the totality of contexts. One option of dealing with this dilemma is to not have an FSK but this is a contradiction as the denial of FSKs is an FSK. FSKs both exist and do not exist and as such are empty appearances.

[Iwannaplato]

ME
And what is your meta-FSK?

[/quote]

Morality, of course.

I guessed this was the question you were answering, not my last one, when you say morality here.

Code: Select all

You don't need science in order to be alive, but you need to stay alive in order to do science.

Sounds reasonable.

In the words of William James "Truth is what's good in the way of belief"; and in the words of Rorty "there is no epistemological difference between truth about what ought to be and truth about what is, nor any metaphysical difference between facts and values, nor any methodological difference between morality and science"

Species who do figure out how the world works and exploit it to their advantage seem to fare better in terms of natural selection. That is, unless they self-destruct.

So, how do you use morality to choose FSKs in a given situation. And how does prioritizing survival - if I am understanding you here - help sort out choices. It seems like the above implies a horizontaling of FSKs. Like 'If it works, great.' So, working is the criterion, not some comparison of epistemological accuracy in representation or correspondance. Not a let's measure the truth values of FSKs statement productions.
How does this work out in every day life?

[Agent Smith]

To repeat myself, absit iniuria, how does the notion of FSK differ from other similar/identical ideas out there?

Bonus question: Which FSK is best?

"The door is too big!"

"Why? What do you mean?"

"Two of you can fit through it is what I mean Julio."

"You mean I have a twin?"

"Gaah! No! Are you that stupid Julio?!"

"Then what? What's wrong with the door!?"

"Sigh! I don't have time for this Julio. The door's fine."

"Oh, ok!"

"The windows ... the windows are ... too ... ahem, koff, koff ... the windows are Goldilocks just right Julio."

"Yes they are!"

[Iwannaplato]

To repeat myself, absit iniuria, how does the notion of FSK differ from other similar/identical ideas out there?

Bonus question: Which FSK is best?

"The door is too big!"

"Why? What do you mean?"

"Two of you can fit through it is what I mean Julio."

"You mean I have a twin?"

"Gaah! No! Are you that stupid Julio?!"

"Then what? What's wrong with the door!?"

"Sigh! I don't have time for this Julio. The door's fine."

"Oh, ok!"

"The windows ... the windows are ... too ... ahem, koff, koff ... the windows are Goldilocks just right Julio."

"Yes they are!"

What do you think communication is for? What's your goal?

[Agent Smith]

To repeat myself, absit iniuria, how does the notion of FSK differ from other similar/identical ideas out there?

Bonus question: Which FSK is best?

"The door is too big!"

"Why? What do you mean?"

"Two of you can fit through it is what I mean Julio."

"You mean I have a twin?"

"Gaah! No! Are you that stupid Julio?!"

"Then what? What's wrong with the door!?"

"Sigh! I don't have time for this Julio. The door's fine."

"Oh, ok!"

"The windows ... the windows are ... too ... ahem, koff, koff ... the windows are Goldilocks just right Julio."

"Yes they are!"

What do you think communication is for? What's your goal?

As of this moment my goal is to further the discussion to the extent possible. Communication is a complex subject and I'm sure we're all in there somewhere.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, what FSK compares the various FSKs and decides on the order from most accurate or dependable to least? It would seem problematic to use science to evaluate FSKs and decide that science's FSK is the best, or?

I went over that with him a year or so ago. He said then that it would be completely easy to compile a full and comprehensive list of all FSKs and then to use his patented reckoning method to assign factual numerical values to their credibility. When asked to show his working on that matter he said it was not a priority right now and that I should use wikipedia to create my own list of all the FSKs.

[Iwannaplato]

So, what FSK compares the various FSKs and decides on the order from most accurate or dependable to least? It would seem problematic to use science to evaluate FSKs and decide that science's FSK is the best, or?

I went over that with him a year or so ago. He said then that it would be completely easy to compile a full and comprehensive list of all FSKs and then to use his patented reckoning method to assign factual numerical values to their credibility. When asked to show his working on that matter he said it was not a priority right now and that I should use wikipedia to create my own list of all the FSKs.

I can easily imagine compiling a list. Prioritizing them becomes tricky. I don't rule out the OK-ness of using one FSK to evaluate all of them. People do this, certainly, but I think it's worth justifying, since pretty much any advocate of any primary FSK is going to think that their primary FSK is the right tool to evaluate all the others. But since criteria are coupled to FSKs this might be a kind of, well, bias. There I said it. I got ugly. I do feel shame.

Though, joking aside, I am, as I said, not ruling that out but it's worth talking about
especially when the advocate actually provides numerical evaluations often with decimal points.

It's got an ad agency pitch vibe to it.

It sure seems intended to be manipulative.

[FlashDangerpants]

So, what FSK compares the various FSKs and decides on the order from most accurate or dependable to least? It would seem problematic to use science to evaluate FSKs and decide that science's FSK is the best, or?

I went over that with him a year or so ago. He said then that it would be completely easy to compile a full and comprehensive list of all FSKs and then to use his patented reckoning method to assign factual numerical values to their credibility. When asked to show his working on that matter he said it was not a priority right now and that I should use wikipedia to create my own list of all the FSKs.

I can easily imagine compiling a list. Prioritizing them becomes tricky. I don't rule out the OK-ness of using one FSK to evaluate all of them. People do this, certainly, but I think it's worth justifying, since pretty much any advocate of any primary FSK is going to think that their primary FSK is the right tool to evaluate all the others. But since criteria are coupled to FSKs this might be a kind of, well, bias. There I said it. I got ugly. I do feel shame.

Would that list be incomplete because you stoppede compiling it once you de3cided you ahd defined enough categories (according to what FSK?) or because the sequence it describes is inherently infinite?

Either way, I can indirectly assist with the other thing... you need the help of somebody whose "forte is Problem Solving Techniques."
The method he describes for assignment of "evil_ness within the moral FSK" is the same as what would assign "credibility_ness" in the meta-FSK.

The reason why you have never learned you were wrong about anything by investigating this FSK thing is that the only actual input it has is your opinions.

• It is your personal choice to pretend there is a "morality-proper" that doesn't have good and bad or right and wrong.

• It's your personal choice to "measure" evilness by applying numbers that correspond to nothing but your opinion to describe how much badness out of 100 genocide scores.

• It's your random belief that DNA provides any basis for any of this stuff.

• It's your opinion that pissing on babies isn't bad enough to merit one of these scores that you completely make up off the top of your head.

• And you are the only person who is impressed by all these folders you sort everything into

It is definitely NOT something I had plucked out of thin air.

Have you not notice I have supported whatever I claimed with some sort of evidences, references, verifications, justifications and arguments?

One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques.
One of the most necessary, effective technique initial approach in problem solving is to identify common patterns [using fishbone analysis and other tools] then assign the best assessed values to them so that those of higher priority are given attention within limited resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints, linear programming, etc.

The above is what I had applied to the criteria and rating of the degrees of evil_ness within the moral FSK.

Thereafter another effective tool to be used is the 80/20 Pareto Analysis so that where a focus on 20% of the problematic root causes can generate 80% of the positive results and not the other way round.

Note, other than the problem solving techniques perspectives there are loads of other perspectives I have taken into account but not discussed here.

I can't make any promises about the "loads of other perspectives [he has] taken into account but not discussed here"

[Iwannaplato]

Would that list be incomplete because you stoppede compiling it once you de3cided you ahd defined enough categories (according to what FSK?) or because the sequence it describes is inherently infinite?

I lack a completion fetish when it comes to some lists.

Either way, I can indirectly assist with the other thing... you need the help of somebody whose "forte is Problem Solving Techniques."

I think we might be conflating having taken a course with a title and a forte or even a forté.

The method he describes for assignment of "evil_ness within the moral FSK" is the same as what would assign "credibility_ness" in the meta-FSK.

Yes, I remember the days when he focused on the degree of evil in Islam as opposed to Christianity.

I can't make any promises about the "loads of other perspectives [he has] taken into account but not discussed here"

Then what good are you to me. I am so close to the source of numerical answers. He's withholding and you lack access.

I feel like a would-be Hollywood screenwriter, trying to get at Spielberg.