Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:39 am
I have answered your question but you are blinded by confirmation bias.

It started with this;


When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it qualify as knowledge and such knowledge is independent of individuals' beliefs or opinions.

Example of the above knowledge is a below;
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E=MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK as independent from any individual person's belief.
A FSK is a human construct, therefore the above knowledge cannot be independent of the human conditions.

The above knowledge exists because there is a scientific-physics FSK that supports its existence.

What is the ontology of the above knowledge?
The ontology of the above knowledge is grounded on the conditions and structure of the FSK which is constructed by humans.

What is the problem of the above?
So then how is any of this independent of human beliefs (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)?
E=MC2 is E=MC2 per scientific-physics FSK which is independent of any individuals' belief of it.

To make it simpler,
if the scientific-biological FSK define an eel as a fish, it is independent of any individuals' belief if anyone who insist an eel is a snake.^
But the scientific-biological FSK is a human construct, thus the ultimate reality is what is a snake is not independent of the human condition.

Note I argued in the other post,
there is no supposed-real-snake that is absolutely independent of the human mind in the ultimate sense. [note Russell's view therein]
Exactly--so HOW, in your view, are E=MC^2 or "An eel is a fish" independent of human beliefs (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)? Claiming that it is in an extremely vague, seemingly contradictory manner doesn't tell me HOW this is the case. It can be independent of a particular individual's belief, but that's not what I'm asking you.

What I'm asking you is how it's independent of human beliefs PERIOD (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:49 am What I'm asking you is how it's independent of human beliefs PERIOD (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)?
Your question is incoherent, moron!

To provide you something "independent of any and all human beliefs" then non-human would have to believe it in general!

So, in the game of playing stupid language games:

1. I reject my own belief in my "humanity" (whatever the hell that is). I am not human.
2. I point out that I believe you are stupid.

And just like that your condition for "objectivity" obtains; while you are left holding a dick in your hand with the burden of proving that I am "human".

To define objectivity in a way that's beyond anyone's reach is to invent a game that nobody can win. THat's the height of stupidity. Why would anybody even play that game?!?!?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:14 am
Nope you got it wrong.

As stated I do not prefer the terms right or wrong, because these terms are too loose, while I accept 'goodness' as 'not-evilness' but I not prefer 'badness' because it does not cover the full taxonomy of acts I considered as 'evil'.
Note this, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#

Btw, I do not reject the pseudo-moral systems I mentioned. There are specific areas within them which has merit and I agree with them. For example I will somewhat agree with the moral maxim of the Ten Commandments, i.e. 'Thou Shalt not Kill' period! I do not agree with the whole theistic moral system as grounded on a God and its other 'moral' maxims.
Yeah, so you rely on your FSK that only you believe in, and that only you can believe in, because belief in it is a requirement to believe the arguments that sustain it, to argue that everyone else is wrong. But that is entirely contradictory to your own description of what is fact.

You can do a little dance where you call the whole of our moral language "pseudo" if you want, but those of us who have an actual education in philosophy have seen that trick before with such items as "folk psychology", and we aren't fooled.

When I wrote the above, I had anticipated you will climbed up the Mt Everest and shout the mantra of 'Circularity'.

If you put the above in a syllogism, yes there is the circularity of classical logic.

Note I had been insisting,
"scientific truths are credible because they depend on a credible scientific FSK" where there is an obvious 'circularity'.
In you insist it is fallacious because of circularity in accordance to classical logic, then something is missing with classical logic, because scientific truths had been adapted into so much utilities that has been positive to the progress of mankind.

What you are ignorant is that there are two major sense to 'circularity' i.e. in the narrow and the broad sense.
What you are harping on is merely in the narrow sense which is useful but limited.
You've been insisting that science is just as circular as your thing for ages. But it's not true. There are exotic branches of modern science that do weird things and arguably require an act of faith to understand. But there is a system there that originated with rather simple explanations for empirical observations with the naked eye, and that is what the rest of it is built up from.

Your FSK relies on itself to ground even its simplest piece of information, which is this notion that you can convert opinions about morality into empirical data about morality without fundamentally changing the type of item you are dealing with.
You don't even understand how science escapes circularity in the narrow sense.
In addition you don't understand the limitation of classical logic which strength is based on abstraction, i.e. stripping all elements of reality naked to get its way.

Note I linked following on how science generate credibility, reliability and confidence levels with minimal faith.
The Credibility and Reliability of Science
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

I claimed my moral FSK has almost all of the above features in justifying its credibility thus avoiding circularity in the narrow sense but within acceptable circularity in the broader sense.
Ok, let's look at that list...
1. Objectivity
Scientific objectivity would have you believe that if an apple falls off a tree in Denmark for some reason, another apple falling off another tree in Brazil will have a similar reason for doing so, or else there will be some extra factor explaining why not.
Your FSK doesn't have such objectivity, you admitted as much yourself when you coined the phrase "personal objectivity" for what your thing has. It is also demonstrated to be absent by the way you cannot use it to show why competing explanations are mistaken.

2. Verifiability
Scientific verifiability would have you believe that if you perform an experiment to measure the effect of titrating a given amount of a solution of x purity with a given amount of carbon dioxide the result will have a certain measurable ph balance, and that this can be verified by repeating the experiment.
Verifiability in your thing asserts nothing more than if you ask VA twice what evil number he assigns to some activity he might give you a broadly similar number both times.

3. Ethical Neutrality
Hardly relevant here, no idea why you listed it.

4. Systematic Exploration
What is that supposed to mean really?

5. Reliability
You cannot be relied upon to make your mind up whether a given claim is verified by observation or just making up new definitions on the fly.

6. Precision
Your claims to precision are absurd, you just make up numbers for evils off the top of your head.

7. Accuracy
Why do we need to list both accuracy and precision?

8. Abstractness
Why do we need to list this factor at all?

9. Predictability.
Meh.

Science escapes circularity by being a method of investigation, not by being a body of knowledge. Your thing is circular in ways that science isn't and you are excercising poor judgment by pursuing this line of argument.

You need to found your method of investigation on something that is not defined and solely validated within the body of knowledge that it is supposed to support. Science does this by observation of regularity in events within the world.

You do everything by asserting that your FSK - which I remind you everyone in the world except you thinks is stupid - is "credible" according to standards that you assert without justification.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:48 pm You do everything by asserting that your FSK - which I remind you everyone in the world except you thinks is stupid - is "credible" according to standards that you assert without justification.
That is literally how science does it! The SI units are defined/stipulated. Justification and credibility is not even a matter for concern.

You are welcome to use them. Or you are welcome to invent your own measurements. You are welcome to use the Metric system or the Imperial system.

You are even welcome to count differently! Use your own number system: base 2, base 10, base 12, base 60. It doesn't matter!
Use a different theory of rings/fields - de-define your operators: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.

Re-define all the rules in your Mathematics. None of that matters if you are applying your definitions consistently and your epistemic framework has any structural integrity that coincides with your experiences your framework will always accurately predict your experiences. Even if you consistently mix up up and down, even if you consistently mix up left with right. Even if you consistently mix up positive with negative charges. Even if you consistently mix up top spin with bottom spin.

That's how fucking translational symmetry works. But hey.... group theory is abstract nonsense that Philosophers don't have to concern themselves with.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

So what? The fact that you can enumerate the measurement of an on object's length in millimeters or inches or whatever doesn't tell us that the object has no property at all to be described as its length.

But making up imaginary numbers for the evilness of punching a nun in the crotch doesn't magically make evilness a measurable property. There is nothing to calibrate against.

I'm not going to bother discussing that thing where you do where you detect an opinion and then pretend that detection is measurement, and conflate the opinion with the subject because that's just stupid and I reject it out of hand in advance for the obvious reasons. I refuse to treat booleans as quantities because it is a catgory mistake in my language and a type error in yours.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:08 pm So what? The fact that you can enumerate the measurement of an on object's length in millimeters or inches or whatever doesn't tell us that the object has no property at all to be described as its length.
It literally tells us exactly that!

"Length" is a social construct. It's defined as the distance between two points given a particular geometry.

How long are you? Uuuuh between which two points, and in what configuration?

Do I become "longer" when I put my hands above my head?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:08 pm But making up imaginary numbers for the evilness of punching a nun in the crotch doesn't magically make evilness a measurable property. There is nothing to calibrate against.
There is nothing to calibrate against in Science either. You pick one standard/definition and stick with it because that's what you use!

We didn't measure the speed of light as 299792458 meters per second. We defined it to be 299792458 meters per second.

Whatever changes hereon forth isn't going to be the speed of light, it's going to be our definitions of meters and seconds.

To translate this in a language you are going to understand. The speed of light can never change. Whatever we measure the speed of light as it is ALWAYS 299792458 meters / second. If our measurements change (or if the speed of light changes) we fix it by re-defining the meter and the second.

The implication of which is that if the speed of light changes you are going to become taller/shorter; or younger/older to make sure Science doesn't blow up.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:08 pm I'm not going to bother discussing that thing where you do where you detect an opinion and then pretend that detection is measurement, and conflate the opinion with the subject because that's just stupid and I reject it out of hand in advance for the obvious reasons.
Yeah "obvious reasons" that you can't articulate.

I'll articulate it for you: Appeal to authority!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:08 pm I refuse to treat booleans as quantities because it is a catgory mistake in my language and a type error in yours.
That's just a truism. In my language all categories are errors. The world is not categorized. Humans do that.

To pretend otherwise is to treat categories as normative against some standard which you continually refuse to articulate.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

If everything is a solipsistic "social" construction, it's a solipsistic "social" construction about what, exactly? One would have to be positing that everything is essentially an arbitrary personal fantasy.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:48 pm If everything is a solipsistic "social" construction, it's a solipsistic "social" construction about what, exactly? One would have to be positing that everything is essentially an arbitrary personal fantasy.
It's not solipsism, you idiot. It's just constructivism - meaning-making.

Everything CAN BE an arbitrary personal fantasy IF you choose to invent your own language, your own concepts, your own philosophy, your own taxonomy/meronomy, your own culture, your own scientific framework, your own meaning, your own value system, your own everything.

That is precisely what happens when you pursue individualism to its logical conclusion! 8 billion idiots/individuals disagreeing about the nature of reality.

8 billion retard philosophers fighting for control over the narrative.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:38 pm In my language all categories are errors.
You had to invoke the categores of language, category and error to express that belief, so we can safely discount everything you write and ignore your senseless bullshittery from this point forward.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:47 pm You had to invoke the categores of language, category and error to express that belief, so we can safely discount everything you write and ignore your senseless bullshittery from this point forward.
You had to mis-interpret my use of those words as categorical in order to misrepresent me.

Don't worry. I've bee challenging your bullshit with actual facts all along.

Keep at it!
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:47 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:38 pm In my language all categories are errors.
You had to invoke the categores of language, category and error to express that belief, so we can safely discount everything you write and ignore your senseless bullshittery from this point forward.
He'd have to not even understand the idea of categorization to say nonsense like that.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:50 pm He'd have to not even understand the idea of categorization to say nonsense like that.
You'd have to not even understand the difference between taxonomies and meronomies to be this stupid.

It's not like I didn't try explaining the nature of classification/categorization to you.

I mean, you couldn't even categorize A and А correctly!

Hypothesis 1: A is the same as А (they belong to the same category) -> [A, А]
Hypothesis 2: A is different to А (they belong to different categories) -> [A], [А]
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:50 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:47 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:38 pm In my language all categories are errors.
You had to invoke the categores of language, category and error to express that belief, so we can safely discount everything you write and ignore your senseless bullshittery from this point forward.
He'd have to not even understand the idea of categorization to say nonsense like that.
He doesn't care, he's just in search of attention and willing to write whatever gets him some of that. It's a mistake to ever engage.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:04 pm He doesn't care, he's just in search of attention and willing to write whatever gets him some of that. It's a mistake to ever engage.
Ad hominem.

I guess, you can put your credibility where your ass is and demonstrate your ability to "categorize correctly"

Hypothesis 1: A is the same as А (they belong to the same category) -> [A, А]
Hypothesis 2: A is different to А (they belong to different categories) -> [A], [А]

Ability to complete this task literally requires competence in empiricism.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:06 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:04 pm He doesn't care, he's just in search of attention and willing to write whatever gets him some of that. It's a mistake to ever engage.
Ad hominem.
No it isn't.
Post Reply