From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

It is a legal truth within a legal FSK, Joseph James DeAngelo [aka Golden State Killer] was convicted of 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California..
Each case of conviction itself is a legal-FSK truth within the specific legal FSK.

Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
Note there are many such cold cases of serious murders and other crimes which were resolved CONCLUSIVELY beyond reasonable doubts many years after the crime, based on scientific-FSK DNA evidences.
DNA testing and a genealogy database reportedly provided police with a breakthrough in the infamous Golden State Killer case.
Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, was arrested Wednesday by the Sacramento Sheriff on charges of murder. Police link the alleged Golden State Killer to 12 homicides, 45 rapes, and 120 home invasions in the 1970s and ’80s in California.

Investigators sequenced DNA from crime scenes that had been stored for decades and plugged the genetic profile of the suspected assailant into an online genealogy database. Officers found distant relatives of DeAngelo’s and traced their DNA to his front door, The New York Times reported.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... cience-spd
From the report above it was the DNA evidences that nailed the cases with the various convictions, i.e. the legal case.
The DNA evidences [scientific-FSK truths] in these cases are the critical and significant evidence which I believe can be rated with a weightage of 90/100 in convincing the jury and confirming the conclusion of the conviction.

So what we have with the above legal-FSK truth,
is that the scientific-FSK truths [of 90% weightage] were input into a legal-FSK to enable the emergence of legal-FSK-truth via a legal FSK.
Agree?

So what is wrong with,
scientific-FSK truths of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK to enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK??
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is case of recalcitrant and dogmatic resistance to the above due heavily to ignorance and dogmatism.
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Verifiable and justifiable only where empirically possible.

I have already verified and justified an empirical moral reality i.e. 'no humans ought-not to kill humans' within a credible FSK. Thus moral realism is real and objective upon the above.
No, you haven't demonstrated that a moral reality exists. You've claimed that humans are programmed not to kill humans, which, even if that's true, doesn't entail the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

And the truth-value of conclusions has nothing to do with who asserts them. For example, even you could make a true assertion.
The answer to the above is proven from the OP above,i.e.

The scientific-FSK truths [that humans are programmed not to kill humans] of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK WILL enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
How is it significant that they collected evidence if evidence either doesn't exist independently of our minds or can't be known/observed as something independent of our minds, and the evidence is only what it is as something that occurs in our minds that we agree on (assuming we can somehow be aware of other people who are not just our own mental phenomena)?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:00 am The answer to the above is proven from the OP above,i.e.

The scientific-FSK truths [that humans are programmed not to kill humans] of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK WILL enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK.
You should get ahead of the game on this one and start pretending you never intended this as an argument to prove anything. It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
How is it significant that they collected evidence if evidence either doesn't exist independently of our minds or can't be known/observed as something independent of our minds, and the evidence is only what it is as something that occurs in our minds that we agree on (assuming we can somehow be aware of other people who are not just our own mental phenomena)?
I don't get your point, it is too messy convoluted.
You familiar with K.I.S.S?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:00 am The answer to the above is proven from the OP above,i.e.

The scientific-FSK truths [that humans are programmed not to kill humans] of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK WILL enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK.
You should get ahead of the game on this one and start pretending you never intended this as an argument to prove anything. It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.
As always you think you had hit the 'bull-eye' but as often you are off target and wrong.
Note the case of the objection I provided, re 'no human ought to kill humans' which could possible end up with overpopulation.

Explain why it is not sound?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:14 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:00 am The answer to the above is proven from the OP above,i.e.

The scientific-FSK truths [that humans are programmed not to kill humans] of 90% weightage being input into a moral FSK WILL enable the emergence of moral-FSK truths via a moral FSK.
You should get ahead of the game on this one and start pretending you never intended this as an argument to prove anything. It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.
As always you think you had hit the 'bull-eye' but as often you are off target and wrong.
Note the case of the objection I provided, re 'no human ought to kill humans' which could possible end up with overpopulation.

Explain why it is not sound?
You in need of a change of topic already?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:14 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:43 pm

You should get ahead of the game on this one and start pretending you never intended this as an argument to prove anything. It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.
As always you think you had hit the 'bull-eye' but as often you are off target and wrong.
Note the case of the objection I provided, re 'no human ought to kill humans' which could possible end up with overpopulation.

Explain why it is not sound?
You in need of a change of topic already?
What I implied was, since you missed the target in the overpopulation case, as usual your point in this case is likely to miss the target as well.

You stated earlier,
FDP:It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.

Explain why the above OP is not sound?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:50 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:14 am
As always you think you had hit the 'bull-eye' but as often you are off target and wrong.
Note the case of the objection I provided, re 'no human ought to kill humans' which could possible end up with overpopulation.

Explain why it is not sound?
You in need of a change of topic already?
What I implied was, since you missed the target in the overpopulation case, as usual your point in this case is likely to miss the target as well.

You stated earlier,
FDP:It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.

Explain why the above OP is not sound?
The overpopulation thing was just an attempt on your part to choose which objections people are allowed to have to your arguments, and nobody cares what your secret answer to it is, you can quit flogging that dead horse if you like.

Your OP here is a mess. It makes one wonder what the contents of one of thee FSK things is actually supposed to be. It would make sense to say for instance that following the ruling in Crown vs Bloggs 1987 the rules for collecting and storing DNA evidence in cases of burglary are x, y and z; and that this qualifies as legal knowledge in some real sense. But the gibberish in your analogy about enabling the emergence of legal knowledge as a dependency of science knowledge can't be renderred meaningful.

This choice of legal fact as some sort of parallel to moral fact is a stratetigc error that I shouldn't really need to explain for the benefit of somebody who assumes they have the right to tell me I am philosophically incompetent. Your supposed moral facts are intended to be universal are they not? So why would you use a jurisdictional knowledge domain as a paradigm for that? It's entirely obvious foolishness.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am Investigators had collected loads of related physical and other evidences, but it was the DNA evidences that nailed them after >30 years as cold cases.
How is it significant that they collected evidence if evidence either doesn't exist independently of our minds or can't be known/observed as something independent of our minds, and the evidence is only what it is as something that occurs in our minds that we agree on (assuming we can somehow be aware of other people who are not just our own mental phenomena)?
I don't get your point, it is too messy convoluted.
You familiar with K.I.S.S?
So step by step.

(1) You'd say that the evidence either (a) doesn't exist independently of our minds, or (b) at least can't be known or observed as something independent of our minds, correct?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:50 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:29 am
You in need of a change of topic already?
What I implied was, since you missed the target in the overpopulation case, as usual your point in this case is likely to miss the target as well.

You stated earlier,
FDP:It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.

Explain why the above OP is not sound?
The overpopulation thing was just an attempt on your part to choose which objections people are allowed to have to your arguments, and nobody cares what your secret answer to it is, you can quit flogging that dead horse if you like.
The point is you think what my objection was about but you missed the target and spewed the wrong stuff.
That is what is happening again with the below.
Your OP here is a mess. It makes one wonder what the contents of one of thee FSK things is actually supposed to be. It would make sense to say for instance that following the ruling in Crown vs Bloggs 1987 the rules for collecting and storing DNA evidence in cases of burglary are x, y and z; and that this qualifies as legal knowledge in some real sense. But the gibberish in your analogy about enabling the emergence of legal knowledge as a dependency of science knowledge can't be renderred meaningful.

This choice of legal fact as some sort of parallel to moral fact is a stratetigc error that I shouldn't really need to explain for the benefit of somebody who assumes they have the right to tell me I am philosophically incompetent. Your supposed moral facts are intended to be universal are they not? So why would you use a jurisdictional knowledge domain as a paradigm for that? It's entirely obvious foolishness.
You missed my point again.

I stated the truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA is a 'legal truth' from within a legal framework and system FSK.
How did they arrive at that legal truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was the murderer?
The conviction was based on loads of evidence but the evidence with the greatest weight as the DNA evidence.

The DNA [scientific knowledge] as evidences in the legal FSK are not legal knowledge, rather they are scientific truths that are input into the legal FSK to enable the legal FSK to make its final decision which is then a legal truth specific upon that legal FSK.

I stated the DNA as evidence in that legal decision has the greatest significance in contributing to the above legal truth, i.e. that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA.

Btw, the DNA is not only the scientific truth [various forensic science evidences] that is input into the legal FSK, while they are relevant they are not critical with the greater weightages.

My point is if scientific truths are relied upon by various FSKs, e.g. the legal FSK to enable the legal truth, why not the moral FSK relies upon scientific evidences and others to arrive at its moral truths.
In my case, I am referring to the DNA, evolutionary science, neurosciences, etc. as evidences to support my moral truths [facts].
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:38 am
How is it significant that they collected evidence if evidence either doesn't exist independently of our minds or can't be known/observed as something independent of our minds, and the evidence is only what it is as something that occurs in our minds that we agree on (assuming we can somehow be aware of other people who are not just our own mental phenomena)?
I don't get your point, it is too messy convoluted.
You familiar with K.I.S.S?
So step by step.

(1) You'd say that the evidence either
(a) doesn't exist independently of our minds, or
(b) at least can't be known or observed as something independent of our minds, correct?
I did not state the above as unqualified.

As qualified, I stated [as in another post to you];

1. Common and Conventional Sense
The evidence exists independently of our mind and can be known [acquainted] as something independent of out minds.

2. In the Ultimate sense of reality
The above in 1 is ultimately subsumed within the human conditions.
Therefore the independence of 1 above is ultimately entangled with the human conditions that ultimately is not independent of the human conditions.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:50 am
What I implied was, since you missed the target in the overpopulation case, as usual your point in this case is likely to miss the target as well.

You stated earlier,
FDP:It's going to become an indicator that there is a clue as soon as you realise that it is nothing but another extremely weak argument from a poorly chosen analogy and that the OP is nonsense anyway.

Explain why the above OP is not sound?
The overpopulation thing was just an attempt on your part to choose which objections people are allowed to have to your arguments, and nobody cares what your secret answer to it is, you can quit flogging that dead horse if you like.
The point is you think what my objection was about but you missed the target and spewed the wrong stuff.
That is what is happening again with the below.
Your OP here is a mess. It makes one wonder what the contents of one of thee FSK things is actually supposed to be. It would make sense to say for instance that following the ruling in Crown vs Bloggs 1987 the rules for collecting and storing DNA evidence in cases of burglary are x, y and z; and that this qualifies as legal knowledge in some real sense. But the gibberish in your analogy about enabling the emergence of legal knowledge as a dependency of science knowledge can't be renderred meaningful.

This choice of legal fact as some sort of parallel to moral fact is a stratetigc error that I shouldn't really need to explain for the benefit of somebody who assumes they have the right to tell me I am philosophically incompetent. Your supposed moral facts are intended to be universal are they not? So why would you use a jurisdictional knowledge domain as a paradigm for that? It's entirely obvious foolishness.
You missed my point again.

I stated the truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA is a 'legal truth' from within a legal framework and system FSK.
How did they arrive at that legal truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was the murderer?
The conviction was based on loads of evidence but the evidence with the greatest weight as the DNA evidence.

The DNA [scientific knowledge] as evidences in the legal FSK are not legal knowledge, rather they are scientific truths that are input into the legal FSK to enable the legal FSK to make its final decision which is then a legal truth specific upon that legal FSK.

I stated the DNA as evidence in that legal decision has the greatest significance in contributing to the above legal truth, i.e. that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA.

Btw, the DNA is not only the scientific truth [various forensic science evidences] that is input into the legal FSK, while they are relevant they are not critical with the greater weightages.

My point is if scientific truths are relied upon by various FSKs, e.g. the legal FSK to enable the legal truth, why not the moral FSK relies upon scientific evidences and others to arrive at its moral truths.
In my case, I am referring to the DNA, evolutionary science, neurosciences, etc. as evidences to support my moral truths [facts].
So what exactly is an FSK? Is each bit of knowledge part of one or many of these FSK things? Please explain properly how they work.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by uwot »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 amSo what exactly is an FSK? Is each bit of knowledge part of one or many of these FSK things? Please explain properly how they work.
It's just a narrative/model/paradigm/philosophy. People take their favourite axioms, stitch them together and pretend they've solved a problem they've made up. As a moral theory it works because it has clearly taken Mr Aequitus a long time to brew, which is all time he wasn't out robbing banks and being a baddie.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Scientific-FSK Truths to Legal-FSK Truths

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:19 am
The overpopulation thing was just an attempt on your part to choose which objections people are allowed to have to your arguments, and nobody cares what your secret answer to it is, you can quit flogging that dead horse if you like.
The point is you think what my objection was about but you missed the target and spewed the wrong stuff.
That is what is happening again with the below.
Your OP here is a mess. It makes one wonder what the contents of one of thee FSK things is actually supposed to be. It would make sense to say for instance that following the ruling in Crown vs Bloggs 1987 the rules for collecting and storing DNA evidence in cases of burglary are x, y and z; and that this qualifies as legal knowledge in some real sense. But the gibberish in your analogy about enabling the emergence of legal knowledge as a dependency of science knowledge can't be renderred meaningful.

This choice of legal fact as some sort of parallel to moral fact is a stratetigc error that I shouldn't really need to explain for the benefit of somebody who assumes they have the right to tell me I am philosophically incompetent. Your supposed moral facts are intended to be universal are they not? So why would you use a jurisdictional knowledge domain as a paradigm for that? It's entirely obvious foolishness.
You missed my point again.

I stated the truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA is a 'legal truth' from within a legal framework and system FSK.
How did they arrive at that legal truth that Joseph James DeAngelo was the murderer?
The conviction was based on loads of evidence but the evidence with the greatest weight as the DNA evidence.

The DNA [scientific knowledge] as evidences in the legal FSK are not legal knowledge, rather they are scientific truths that are input into the legal FSK to enable the legal FSK to make its final decision which is then a legal truth specific upon that legal FSK.

I stated the DNA as evidence in that legal decision has the greatest significance in contributing to the above legal truth, i.e. that Joseph James DeAngelo was legally and officially CONVICTED as a murderer in a court in the USA.

Btw, the DNA is not only the scientific truth [various forensic science evidences] that is input into the legal FSK, while they are relevant they are not critical with the greater weightages.

My point is if scientific truths are relied upon by various FSKs, e.g. the legal FSK to enable the legal truth, why not the moral FSK relies upon scientific evidences and others to arrive at its moral truths.
In my case, I am referring to the DNA, evolutionary science, neurosciences, etc. as evidences to support my moral truths [facts].
So what exactly is an FSK? Is each bit of knowledge part of one or many of these FSK things? Please explain properly how they work.
It is very unfortunate you cannot infer from what is meant by a framework and system of knowledge.

I have repeated a '1000' times, all scientific knowledge are conditioned upon the scientific framework and system.

I believe if you are familiar with the Philosophy of Science you would be familiar with the concept that Science is conditioned upon a specific framework and system.
  • 1 Introduction
    1.1 Defining science
    1.2 Scientific explanation
    1.3 Justifying science
    1.4 Observation inseparable from theory
    1.5 The purpose of science
    1.6 Values and science
    2 History
    2.1 Pre-modern
    2.2 Modern
    2.3 Logical positivism
    2.4 Thomas Kuhn
    3 Current approaches
    3.1 Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
    3.2 Coherentism
    3.3 Anything goes methodology
    3.4 Sociology of scientific knowledge methodology
    3.5 Continental philosophy
    4 Other topics
    4.1 Reductionism
    4.2 Social accountability
    5 Philosophy of particular sciences
The framework set the boundaries of science [the limitations, boundaries, the assumptions, principles, etc.] and the systems [scientific method, peer review, etc.] are the processes that enable the discovery and confirmation of scientific knowledge.

If you understand the general principles of the above re Framework and System of knowledge [FSK] then you can apply them to all sort of knowledge, beliefs, and opinions [where applicable].
Post Reply