PH: Your FSRK Theory is Just Wrong

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not claim "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" did not occur.
But their occurrence is conditioned upon an embodied human-based historical FSRK.

Please, please pay attention to what others say about your claims and argument.

Your claim about conditioning is very obviously false. The historical 'occurrences' (ie, facts) about Lincoln are not conditioned upon anything whatsoever. They just occurred, and had nothing to do with the practice and discourse of history. And you agree that this is the case.

Just as the chemical constitution of water is what it is, and has nothing to do with the practice and discourse of chemistry. And you agree that this is the case.

Your FSRK theory is just wrong.

There is no way, there are absolute truths or reality with history.
Haven't you heard, "history is written by Victors".
As such, the reality of whatever is historical must be qualified to 'who' and the conditions [thus the specific historical FSRC is conditioned or contingent upon.]

Also that "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" is conditioned upon the US Constitution and US political FSRC.
That "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" is also contingent by human observations [FSRC] and the medical FSRC.

Whatever is Chemistry is conditioned and contingent upon the embodied human-based science-chemistry FSRC. [Framework and System of Emergence, Realization of Reality and Cognition].

There is no way things just occurred or exist without being contingent and conditioned some sort of FSRC.

If anyone were to agree with the OP, justify to me your claim that it just occurred without being contingent to some elements of human influence?

What is a FSRK [now as FSRC]

Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science. It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.

Using this phrase to describe scientific knowledge implies that there is a systematic process by which scientific facts are discovered, verified, and integrated into a broader understanding of the natural world. This can include concepts such as scientific method, peer review, and consensus-building within the scientific community.

Overall, while the specific phrase "A Framework and System of Knowledge" may not be commonly used, it accurately reflects the way that knowledge is organized and understood within many academic fields.
posting.php?mode=edit&p=492832

I have argued,
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. FSRC sense of reality
2. P-realist [mind-independence] sense of reality.
Only the FSRC is realistic, the p-realist sense is grounded on an illusion.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why FSRC is preferred over FSRK?
viewtopic.php?t=41906