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

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 5:08 pm
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.
Prediction. The idiot Philosopher will avoid the challenge thus demonstrating lack of understanding of what measurement is and how it works.

Empirically confirm/disconfirm one of these theories:

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]

It must be my attention-seeking behaviour that is causing his incompetence.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
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 5:10 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:08 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:06 pm
Ad hominem.
No it isn't.
Prediction. The idiot Philosopher will avoid the challenge:

Empirically confirm/disconfirm one of these theories:

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]
Epic win for you, perhaps Henry can spare you one of his prized cookies. I can't be bothered getting sucked into your vendetta against Aristotle.

You can be too clever and important to be fooled into thinking a thing is the same as itself, and I can be too clever and important to waste my day arguing about that with you. Everybody gets their cookie that way. Except whatever poor sap you suck into that stupid argument, I assume you are going to spam this as often and heartily as you did with the big red dot until you find that poor fool?
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 5:15 pm Epic win for you, perhaps Henry can spare you one of his prized cookies. I can't be bothered getting sucked into your vendetta against Aristotle.

You can be too clever and important to be fooled into thinking a this the same as itself, and I can be too clever and important to waste my day arguing about that with you. Everybody gets their cookie that way. Except whatever poor sap you suck into that stupid argument, I assume you are going to spam this as often and heartily as you did with the big red dot until you find that poor fool?
How is my attention-seeking behaviour or my vendetta against Aristotle getting in your way of categorizing? Mr "category error".
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Enough. You can resubmit you application for some attention in June.
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 5:17 pm Enough. You can resubmit you application for some attention in June.
Look at it ferociously back-pedal. Avoiding the simple task.

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]

Why can't you choose the "correct categorisation", Mr Category Error?

Your level of incompetence cannot be cured by June. Not June 2021 anyway.
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 »

I guess I was right, huh?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:10 pm Prediction. The idiot Philosopher will avoid the challenge thus demonstrating lack of understanding of what measurement is and how it works.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:44 am

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)?
You tell me, I NEVER claim knowledge or reality is independent of the human conditions [beliefs].

I have always argued,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Thus while there is apparent independence within common and conventional sense, ultimately knowledge and reality cannot be independent of the human conditions as indicated above.

Note also,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

The above positions are supported by various Physicists and neuroscientists.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:37 am 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.
Your are infected by confirmation bias, thus it is not likely you will accept any of my views.

At present I am the only one agreeing with my moral FSK but with very high conviction thus 'personal objectivity.'
However Principle of Objectivity is one of the imperative principle and feature of my FSK.
The principle of 'objectivity' e.g. like in science is mainly because it is qualified to the scientific FSK and not to any individual's [scientist or otherwise]. Objectivity in this case means independent of any individual's opinion or belief.
Thus when fully implemented, my FSK will be highly objective.

Verified means can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
Therefore whatever claims are made within the moral FSK, they must be able to be verified as true and credible.
Say my claim of the moral reality 'no human ought to kill humans.'
The question then is, how is the above verified and justified empirically and philosophically?
In that case, as I had indicated, I will refer to various scientific knowledge and others. I have already discussed this many times.

The above are the main features.
I can justify all the other criteria in various degrees. but I am not going to waste time.

The point is I stated my FSK has similar features of that of science in terms of credibility and reliability but I admit the degree will be lower.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:36 am Thus when fully implemented, my FSK will be highly objective.
And with that the turkey basted himself and climbed back into the oven.

You've already admitted that your FSK relies upon itelf to provide the validity of everything it says.
You've claimed it is credible, and is comarable with the sciences in present tense.
But now we see that you are faking it until you make it.

Your FSK isn't objective, you hope it will one day pass as such (even for that, depending on a weak definition of objectivity). Why have you been making claims on it as if it already is ojbective?
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:23 am And with that the turkey basted himself and climbed back into the oven.

You've already admitted that your FSK relies upon itelf to provide the validity of everything it says.
Why is that a bad thing? That's how science works. The criteria for validity are socially defined. The measurement units are socially defined.

it's merely your normative view that it OUGHT to work differently. But you don't believe in traversing the is-ought gap, right?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:23 am You've claimed it is credible, and is comarable with the sciences in present tense.
But now we see that you are faking it until you make it.
Science has been transparent about this fact! Polished conjectures is all we have.

Again. It's just your idealistic/normative view that it OUGHT to work differently.
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:13 am
You tell me, I NEVER claim knowledge or reality is independent of the human conditions [beliefs].
So then re this: "What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria listed in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs." --you'd have to say that there is no such thing, because there is no reality independent of beliefs on your view.
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:24 am So then re this: "What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria listed in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs." --you'd have to say that there is no such thing, because there is no reality independent of beliefs on your view.
That's a pretty stupid line of reasoning.

Who is going to determine this "independence" and how? What are the testable/falsifiable criteria for "independence" ?

If it's just a matter of us saying it then whatever. You say say anything.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:13 am
You tell me, I NEVER claim knowledge or reality is independent of the human conditions [beliefs].
So then re this: "What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria listed in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs." --you'd have to say that there is no such thing, because there is no reality independent of beliefs on your view.
He doesn't formulate it that way, he specifies that a shared belief meets his definition of objectivity because it is independent of any particular person's beliefs, but he doesn't specify that any components other than belief are required for this 'belief independence'.

It has the outcome that the KKK has an objective belief that black people are morally inferior to white people because more than one Klansman believes this to be the case. Others might not agree that this meets a reasonable definition of objectivity.
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:09 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:13 am
You tell me, I NEVER claim knowledge or reality is independent of the human conditions [beliefs].
So then re this: "What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria listed in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs." --you'd have to say that there is no such thing, because there is no reality independent of beliefs on your view.
He doesn't formulate it that way, he specifies that a shared belief meets his definition of objectivity because it is independent of any particular person's beliefs, but he doesn't specify that any components other than belief are required for this 'belief independence'.

It has the outcome that the KKK has an objective belief that black people are morally inferior to white people because more than one Klansman believes this to be the case. Others might not agree that this meets a reasonable definition of objectivity.
Right. Part of what I'm getting at is that I'm hoping he'll think about where he's getting the idea from that objectivity refers to independence from particular, arbitrary persons' beliefs or opinions, but not other persons' beliefs or opinions.
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: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:26 pm Right. Part of what I'm getting at is that I'm hoping he'll think about where he's getting the idea from that objectivity refers to independence from particular, arbitrary persons' beliefs or opinions, but not other persons' beliefs or opinions.
Trivially. True opinions are the same things as "facts" and "knowledge".

This holds for all truth-theories, independent from the implication that in a social context some facts/knowledge are trivial or useless.

Of course. That's the problem with truth itself - it's not very useful on its own.
Post Reply