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.