There is no circularity if we start with a set of rational criteria and setting a standard therefrom to compare all other FSKs in terms of credibility and objectivity.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:58 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:23 am
No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?
This is a waste of time.
Nah, you are just ignorant and banking on traditional logic without understanding its limitations. You think traditional logic is God?
Explain to me why what AI proposed above is not reasonable nor feasible
Do you understand how standards are set without reference to any prior standards?
Long ago, what is the standard 'foot' was simply referenced from someone's foot without any justification why that foot is chosen as the standard.
It is the same for all existing standards.
So it is the same of the use of a set of rational criteria that is generally accepted as a basis to assess the credibility and objective of each FSRC, model, paradigm and the like.
You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.
This is a waste of time.
It is at your discretion.
It is like you are complaining quantum physics is a waste of time because you cannot understand it.
You are just like theists who refuse to understand [not agree with] the views of non-theists who counter them.
It is a great psychological threat and very painful [need to go through a cold turkey] for you to even try to understand [not necessary agree with] my antirealist views. I am not expecting and hopefully you remain the same.
No, the reason why this is a waste of time is that you either don't understand, or can't afford to acknowledge, the fundamental problem with your theory.
It is up to you to argued my theory is fundamentally wrong.
But how could you when the basis of your argument against mine is grounded on an illusion?
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
So far you have not provided any convincing counter to my point.
Do you understand [not agree with] my point?
You say that there's no reality outside a model of reality - an 'FSRC'. But then you say we can assess and compare the objectivity of models by applying 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.
As an anti-realist I am opposing your claim that there is a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The principle is a relative comparison can be done with anything [objectivity, any variable] as long as a fixed standard [gold or otherwise] is set.
You deny this?
If I use your height as the standard of a human height, then the other >8 billion person's height can be compared to your height as the standard as a relative %.
Or if an average height of humans at present is determined that can be used as a standard; but note will anyone question how the average height is obtained? no .. it is simply accepted and assumed a rational methodology has been applied.
Note the controversial IQ which was accepted and applied by many earlier but lately the rational basis of its criteria has been questioned. I believe IQ is still use in some limited ways with awareness of its limitations.
But so far, there is nothing fishy in using a set of rational criteria to assess the credibility and objective of FSRCs and using the highest rated as the standard, i.e. which as determined is the scientific FSRC [implicitly or explicitly]. I have merely it more explicit.
Then you list those criteria and refer to a methodology. And the criteria and methodology are all realist, in that they assume there is a reality against which we can assess and compare our models. And you say the natural sciences come out tops as 'the gold standard'.
This is absolutely wrong to insist all those criteria are realists.
All those criteria are human-based they cannot be in realist term, i.e. independent of humans.
As I had stated, your insistence that there is an independent reality against which we can assess and compare is grounded on an illusion.
In the case you are mirroring [as condemned by Rorty] a model against an independent external reality.
And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.
Again your
ideological claim of a reality outside the model is fatuous and groundless.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Now, I think you just can't handle this explanation. I think you're intellectually unable to do so. So you lash out with slurs against those of us who try to explain where you go wrong. And it's a waste of time.
I only lash out as a tit for tat, e.g. to FDP.
Those who attack me without an intellectually basis [e.g. FDP] is due their psychological desperations to soothe their existential crisis.
I prefer to discuss amicably and amenable, and is prepared to trash out the issue as long as it takes [it provide a leverage for me to learn more; btw, I hope you will not agree with me] in an intellectual and philosophical mode.
The only critique I had on you is your shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking which is intellectually related. This critique is not lashing out.
That is why I suggest it is critical you read the following;
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
to understand my fundamental [substance] principles which are similar therein,
but note, I do not agree with all the forms therein.
The related thread here;
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979
It is a serious call, sacrifice some time and you will understand [not agree with] my position more clearly.
Please confirm you have read and understood [not agree with] it.
The related threads:
Relativism about Logic
Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism
Social Constructivism
Conceptual Relativism
Also give a summary of what you understand from the above.
You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.
Also do you understand why you are so dogmatic with your narrow and shallow philosophical views?
Clue: evolutionary, history of Western Philosophy, analytic philosophy, Anglo-American ideology,