Also - what is it that makes one KFC more credible and reliable than another anyway? VA has never explained this.
I think the ranking nonsense is a distraction from the main issue, which is: why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?
The silly KFC theory doesn't address this question, because it's main claim is that there's no such thing as reality ('whatever is real' etc) outside KFCs.
So the only way to assess the relative credibility and reliability of KFCs - for example, why astronomy is more credible and reliable than astrology - is from within another KFC - and so on, in an endless circle. (Among others, IWP has been pointing this out for ages.)
Supposedly, there's no reality outside KFCs against which to assess them. So VA has no basis for his belief that the natural sciences are 'better' than all the others. And I think this leads to the contradiction at the heart of all the fashionable versions of antirealism that VA peddles.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 9:36 am
Also - what is it that makes one KFC more credible and reliable than another anyway? VA has never explained this.
Well, apparently Will Bouwman knows what makes one thing more or less objective than another thing soooo...
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:30 pm
Being dead is rather more objective than being wrong, methinks.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 9:36 am
And I think this leads to the contradiction at the heart of all the fashionable versions of antirealism that VA peddles.
And when are you going to address the contradiction at the heart of subjective moralism?
If morality is subjective pending the existence of moral facts.
And the moral facts have been presented to you in accordance with your requirements: sound and valid reasoning.
Thus contradicting the claim that morality is subjective. Why do you not reject moral subjectivism yet?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:54 amAny effective moral system must be idiot-proof in terms of the standards to be set.
Bit harsh. Where can idiots draw their morals from?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:54 amI also claim that standard 2 can be justified and inferred from empirical evidences [very evident] via a morality-proper FSRC as objective.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:15 pmIs there an objective standard for "killing"? Or is it just how one describes some events?
Well, if someone ends up dead because of some events you actioned
Is there an objective standard for "ending up dead" and "events I actioned"? Or is it just how one describes some events?
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:30 pm
I am happy to conclude that you killed them. Being dead is rather more objective than being wrong, methinks.
So you are comparing the relative objectivities of dead-ness and wrong-ness?
Great! We agree that they are both objective then!
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 11:37 pm
He's right. You are an idiot, because you think that slavery is wrong because Paris the the capital of France..
This problem isn't going to go away by just putting it on the back-burner and hoping people stop asking you about it.
Nothing that matters is even addressed by having a framework for sorting all the frameworks into some league table.
If it was a useful idea, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether it was possible.
Nothing about your number invention method makes any sense and that approach is no use to solving this issue that probably doesn't need solving.
So we have no reason to take this meta-KFC thing at all. Therefore it is rejected.
All your other shit follows it down the same toilet, because all that KFC rubbish you spout depends upon this "credibility" you meaningless assign to things for no particular reason, to solve no particular problem.
You are ignorant and living within a silo.
If you have to have open heart surgery would you depend of the theories and practices of a shaman [FSRC] or a cardiac surgeon leaning his skills on the science-FRSC.
Any rational person will rely on the cardiac surgeon but merely based on faith?
This is why we need some sort of measurement of objectivity to conclude why the cardiac surgeon is more credible, trustworthy and objective.
If that were true we would be stupid to rely on made up numbers as a means for deciding the "credibility" of one of these KFCs, it be suicide. Lukcinly it isn't, because I don't need any numbers tohelp me decide whether to visit a real doctor or a witch doctor, I don't even consider the voodoo option and if you offered me numbers that said I ought to, I would laugh at your silly made up numbers again.
This is because medical science is type of thing we currently believe we are justified in trusting, and witchcraft is the sort of thing we currently are all persuaded is dumb. Then we only need to know enougg to work out which category to place a thing into and then we are golden.
I know enough about how measurement is supposed to work that I can see that your credibilty-scoring-KFC-bucket is nonsense that makes up bullshit numbers for the purposes of a pointless scoring system to be used in a maniacal sorting game by one strange man on the internet. I don't need to assign it a credibility score of 0.7 out of 622 to know that I will never use it or the fraudulent numbers you make up.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:06 am
It is the same with comparing the theories of creationists [FSRC] with those of Science-Physics-Cosmology FSRC.
There are definitely times where we need to assess the credibility and objective of other varying degree within a spectrum from low to high.
I suggest your research wider from your existing dogmatic knowledge-base.
That is just more pointless sorting games. Nobody is into them except you. They are shit and stupid.
"Nobody is into them except you" ??
You are very ignorant of what is going in this world.
I would not have referred to such practices if I had not attended courses that teach such a methodology related to decision-making which is ubiquitous in human life.
It is not about the numbers generated as examples but rather what is important are the Principles involved to facilitate decision making.
If you read On Certainty seriously, you will find Wittgenstein did grapple with the issue of which is more certain, doubtful or on "I know".
If W had time or necessity to be more rigorous he would have to resort to using sets of criteria and put in relevant weightages.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:54 am
This objective standard targets no humans are killed by humans.
Eh?!? What about humans killed by preventable medical conditions ?!?
You keep missing the forrest for the trees.
??
if humans are killed in any way [medical conditions] in contra to the standard,
then the onus is to find preventive measures to avoid such killings in the future in striving to meet the standard.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:54 amAny effective moral system must be idiot-proof in terms of the standards to be set.
Bit harsh. Where can idiots draw their morals from?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:54 amI also claim that standard 2 can be justified and inferred from empirical evidences [very evident] via a morality-proper FSRC as objective.
Ah.
It is quite a common term.
The term "foolproof" originates in 1902.[1] The term "idiot-proof" became popular in the 1970s.[2]
In modern English usage, the informal term idiot-proof or foolproof describes designs that cannot be misused either inherently, or by use of defensive design principles. The implication is that the design is usable even by someone of low intelligence who would not use it properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot-proof
In an idiot-proof system, there is no need for idiots to make any decision on a related issue.
Everything is designed such that even idiots will not make mistakes.
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard all day.