What is your Framework and System of Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

All FSKs are constructed by humans, thus ultimately "empty".

Acknowledging it is empty, what is your System and Framework of Knowledge and what are its dependent FSK if any?
If you don't rely on any FSK at all, you are standing on air.

Let me give you a clue to what your FSK is,
Your FSK re the issue is based on the very shaky and rickety Framework and System of Reality called 'Metaphysics of Substance Theory'.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons.

First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion.
Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

What you'll end up with the above Metaphysical FSK is an illusion.

Kant asked the famous question;
"Is Metaphysics Possible" like Science and Mathematics.
The resounding answer is, NO!!!

Given the emptiness of the FSK I would still be standing on air if using one.

What is the FSK you use to determine the most credible FSK?

You are trying to run away from justifying your position.

You should at least describe the FSK you are relying upon and then explain how it would ultimately be empty.

For example, the scientific FSK is the most reliable in representing reality but yes, it is ultimately depending on the air cushion of humans are sitting on.

Otherwise what you are insisting is, what you propose is true because you said so, without reference to any FSK you are relying upon.

[Skepdick]

Where the individual Hitler was doing better, surely humanity was not doing better?

Great strawman, now pick from the charitable side of the distribution.

My point is the BB [and other scientific theories] of scientific FSK is obvious more credible than the creationism of theistic religions.

What's your FSK for gauging "credibility" ?

Agree cannot guarantee.
But the reliability is depended on past results and thus highly likely but with no guarantee.

If it is wrong at least it is based on something rational which we can improve upon.
In contrast to what is depended upon blind faith.

Any process of iterative improvement requires blind faith to function!

Somebody has to do the experiment with ZERO evidence that it will pay off in the end. Some faith pays off, some doesn't.

In the words of Edison "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Yes, layman will have to rely on 'faith' to believe the various FSK.

No! The point you keep missing is that even the scientists themselves, the people who create knowledge absolutely rely on faith!

The people who explore the unknown need it most!

However I don't think for many it is based on blind faith.
I would trust medicines from reputable regulated pharmacies [no guarantee] than those from a shaman or folk medicine men.

And if you didn't have the choice of the former in the place where you live?

Much of folk medicine works, even if the folks don't know why it works.

Much of modern medicine is about isolating the active compounds in folk medicine.

Generally yes, but not in all cases, e.g. Hitler and other evil dictators.

Goals of Humanity is related to its well-being.
What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

Many of the reasons Hitler got into power is because he promised Germans well-being (you should read some history). He delivered too.

Not to mention much of the scientific progress the Nazis made.

Yes, in a way, but
The FSK of risk management, problem solving, logic and the likes are tools and not exactly producing knowledge, like the scientific FSK and the likes.

They do produce knowledge. Tacit knowledge!

What I was referring was to FSKs that produce knowledge representing reality thus has utility to humanity in that sense.
I will qualify my question as above in future.

Representational knowledge is only one kind of knowledge. Representational knowledge suffers from one fatal flaw in a fast-moving world.

Freshness.

Does it represent how the world is; or how the world was?

[Skepdick]

Random PS, have you considered that a "Framework and System of Reality" is what most people call a "Philosophy"?

The problem, of course, remains. Given all possible Philosophies, what criterion would we use to choose the "best" Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is the BB [and other scientific theories] of scientific FSK is obvious more credible than the creationism of theistic religions.

What's your FSK for gauging "credibility" ?

I have presented it here;
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333
The criteria will be given 'weights' from a weightage FSK.

Agree cannot guarantee.
But the reliability is depended on past results and thus highly likely but with no guarantee.

If it is wrong at least it is based on something rational which we can improve upon.
In contrast to what is depended upon blind faith.

Any process of iterative improvement requires blind faith to function!

Somebody has to do the experiment with ZERO evidence that it will pay off in the end. Some faith pays off, some doesn't.

In the words of Edison "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Yes, layman will have to rely on 'faith' to believe the various FSK.

No! The point you keep missing is that even the scientists themselves, the people who create knowledge absolutely rely on faith!

The people who explore the unknown need it most!

ALL humans [including scientists and the most rational] are not-omniscient and fallible, thus need faith in every act.
But there is a degree of faith within a continuum from faith-with-justification and blind-faith.

However I don't think for many it is based on blind faith.
I would trust medicines from reputable regulated pharmacies [no guarantee] than those from a shaman or folk medicine men.

And if you didn't have the choice of the former in the place where you live?

Much of folk medicine works, even if the folks don't know why it works.

Much of modern medicine is about isolating the active compounds in folk medicine.

This is why I invoke 'pari passu' i.e. assuming every is equal except the variable in consideration.

Generally yes, but not in all cases, e.g. Hitler and other evil dictators.

Goals of Humanity is related to its well-being.
What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

Many of the reasons Hitler got into power is because he promised Germans well-being (you should read some history). He delivered too.

Not to mention much of the scientific progress the Nazis made.

Note 'pari passu'.

What I was referring was to FSKs that produce knowledge representing reality thus has utility to humanity in that sense.
I will qualify my question as above in future.

Representational knowledge is only one kind of knowledge. Representational knowledge suffers from one fatal flaw in a fast-moving world.

Freshness.

Does it represent how the world is; or how the world was?

As I had stated scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK at its utmost can;
1. save humanity from a pandemic
2. prevent the Earth from being destroyed by a rogue asteroid
3. enable humans to inhabit another planet when Earth is no more inhabitable

What other FSK in generating knowledge can directly contribute to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Random PS, have you considered that a "Framework and System of Reality" is what most people call a "Philosophy"?

The problem, of course, remains. Given all possible Philosophies, what criterion would we use to choose the "best" Philosophy?

Yes, "philosophy" would be the overriding meta "Framework and System of Reality" with its set of principles, theories, limitations and other essentials.
It has to be "philosophy-proper" i.e. the one philosophical FSK that can differential what is real from illusions.

[Skepdick]

Yes, "philosophy" would be the overriding meta "Framework and System of Reality" with its set of principles, theories, limitations and other essentials.
It has to be "philosophy-proper" i.e. the one philosophical FSK that can differential what is real from illusions.

If an FSK that promotes "realness" gets me killed, and an FSK that promotes "illusion" helps me survive - fuck reality.

Utility...

[Skepdick]

As I had stated scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK at its utmost can;
1. save humanity from a pandemic
2. prevent the Earth from being destroyed by a rogue asteroid
3. enable humans to inhabit another planet when Earth is no more inhabitable

What other FSK in generating knowledge can directly contribute to the above?

You keep missing the point: any FSK that can contribute is useful!

Science is nothing but rigour. It merely amplifies the signal while reducing the noise, but the signal could be found anywhere and in any FSK.

Suppose we find some people with a world-view utterly alien to ours, who have some concoction that is effective at treating some illness. They explain its efficacy in terms of the divinity of of Hubu The Magic Greatness!

We find that the concoction is equally effective in treating the illness in our society, so we use science to better understand why it works, so we isolate the active compound which has useful pharmaceutical properties.

But none of that diminishes the facts: the concoction works - the conclusion is correct - the fact that it originated from a non-scientific FSK is irrelevant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, "philosophy" would be the overriding meta "Framework and System of Reality" with its set of principles, theories, limitations and other essentials.
It has to be "philosophy-proper" i.e. the one philosophical FSK that can differential what is real from illusions.

If an FSK that promotes "realness" gets me killed, and an FSK that promotes "illusion" helps me survive - fuck reality.

Utility...

Yes, that is what theists do.
The 'illusion' promotes and promises them they will survive eternally in heaven.
This is why jihadists suicide bombers blew themselves up and fucked reality.

What philosophy-proper does is to differentiate real from illusions and therefrom one can use philosophy-proper to decide what is optimal for specific conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK at its utmost can;
1. save humanity from a pandemic
2. prevent the Earth from being destroyed by a rogue asteroid
3. enable humans to inhabit another planet when Earth is no more inhabitable

What other FSK in generating knowledge can directly contribute to the above?

You keep missing the point: any FSK that can contribute is useful!

Science is nothing but rigour. It merely amplifies the signal while reducing the noise, but the signal could be found anywhere and in any FSK.

Suppose we find some people with a world-view utterly alien to ours, who have some concoction that is effective at treating some illness. They explain its efficacy in terms of the divinity of of Hubu The Magic Greatness!

We find that the concoction is equally effective in treating the illness in our society, so we use science to better understand why it works, so we isolate the active compound which has useful pharmaceutical properties.

But none of that diminishes the facts: the concoction works - the conclusion is correct - the fact that it originated from a non-scientific FSK is irrelevant.

My original point is to give relative credibility to the moral FSK by comparing it to
the scientific FSK which relatively the most credible.
Since the moral FSK is similar the scientific FSK it would have some credibility and not some rickety FSK.

[Skepdick]

Yes, that is what theists do.
The 'illusion' promotes and promises them they will survive eternally in heaven.
This is why jihadists suicide bombers blew themselves up and fucked reality.

What philosophy-proper does is to differentiate real from illusions and therefrom one can use philosophy-proper to decide what is optimal for specific conditions.

You continue to miss the point. I am not talking about the after-life. I am taking about the longevity and well-being of humans and humanity.

If a framework that "promotes illusion" increases my odds of survival&well-being over a framework that "promotes reality"... fuck reality!

If the unity of theists is more optimal for survival than the individualism of atheists... I will consciously choose to be a theist fully cognisant of its "fakeness".

Blind adherence to an FSK just because of its ability to accurately represent reality is useless to me. I don't want to represent reality, I want to control it in my favour.

[Skepdick]

My original point is to give relative credibility to the moral FSK by comparing it to
the scientific FSK which relatively the most credible.
Since the moral FSK is similar the scientific FSK it would have some credibility and not some rickety FSK.

The moral FSK is precisely the FSK which determines the utility of the other FSKs.

The moral FSK is your value-system.

Without a value-system you can't decide which philosophy is better or worse.
Without a value-system you can't decide which FSK is "credible" or not.

Because "credibility" is a value.

[Eodnhoj7]

All FSKs are constructed by humans, thus ultimately "empty".

Acknowledging it is empty, what is your System and Framework of Knowledge and what are its dependent FSK if any?
If you don't rely on any FSK at all, you are standing on air.

Let me give you a clue to what your FSK is,
Your FSK re the issue is based on the very shaky and rickety Framework and System of Reality called 'Metaphysics of Substance Theory'.



What you'll end up with the above Metaphysical FSK is an illusion.

Kant asked the famous question;
"Is Metaphysics Possible" like Science and Mathematics.
The resounding answer is, NO!!!

Given the emptiness of the FSK I would still be standing on air if using one.

What is the FSK you use to determine the most credible FSK?

You are trying to run away from justifying your position.

You should at least describe the FSK you are relying upon and then explain how it would ultimately be empty.

For example, the scientific FSK is the most reliable in representing reality but yes, it is ultimately depending on the air cushion of humans are sitting on.

Otherwise what you are insisting is, what you propose is true because you said so, without reference to any FSK you are relying upon.

The FSK is observation itself given observation is both the FSK and what makes the FSK. Observation is grounded in the assuming (being imprinted by) of repeatable patterns and change of one pattern to another.

In observing the inherent emptiness of all phenomenon one is left with the grounding position of it being pure observation itself.

You cannot say a FSK can stand alone when it depends upon further observations and FSKs to justify it.

What FSK do you use to justify science as the most credible FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My original point is to give relative credibility to the moral FSK by comparing it to
the scientific FSK which relatively the most credible.
Since the moral FSK is similar the scientific FSK it would have some credibility and not some rickety FSK.

The moral FSK is precisely the FSK which determines the utility of the other FSKs.

The moral FSK is your value-system.

Without a value-system you can't decide which philosophy is better or worse.
Without a value-system you can't decide which FSK is "credible" or not.

Because "credibility" is a value.

Yes, in a way, but we have to refer to the context.

The moral FSK determines the utility of other FSKs as and when the outputs of other FSK are translated into human actions.
There is no moral relevance for the fact from the astronomy FSK that the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, and the likes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Given the emptiness of the FSK I would still be standing on air if using one.

What is the FSK you use to determine the most credible FSK?

You are trying to run away from justifying your position.

You should at least describe the FSK you are relying upon and then explain how it would ultimately be empty.

For example, the scientific FSK is the most reliable in representing reality but yes, it is ultimately depending on the air cushion of humans are sitting on.

Otherwise what you are insisting is, what you propose is true because you said so, without reference to any FSK you are relying upon.

The FSK is observation itself given observation is both the FSK and what makes the FSK. Observation is grounded in the assuming (being imprinted by) of repeatable patterns and change of one pattern to another.

In observing the inherent emptiness of all phenomenon one is left with the grounding position of it being pure observation itself.

You cannot say a FSK can stand alone when it depends upon further observations and FSKs to justify it.

The FSK of Observation is a very limited, i.e. it merely provide its output to other FSKs, e.g. scientific, psychology, etc.
Observation is limited to the senses.

Whatever the FSK, it is conditioned by human interventions.

You don't observe your 'emptiness of all phenomenon' that is a logical inference using Pure Reason which is very crude.

The FSK you are relying upon is that of the Metaphysics FSK.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[1]

The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural".

Metaphysics which has no convincing foundations nor proof is regarded as spurious by many rational philosophers, e.g.'

Metametaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[35] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a metametaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][36] or ontological deflationism.[37]

In the 16th century, Francis Bacon rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.

In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:

• If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it [metaphysics] can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

[38]

... he [Kant] followed Hume in rejecting much of previous metaphysics, ...

In the 1930s, A.J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[42] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it.

-ibid

What FSK do you use to justify science as the most credible FSK?

see:
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

[Eodnhoj7]

You are trying to run away from justifying your position.

You should at least describe the FSK you are relying upon and then explain how it would ultimately be empty.

For example, the scientific FSK is the most reliable in representing reality but yes, it is ultimately depending on the air cushion of humans are sitting on.

Otherwise what you are insisting is, what you propose is true because you said so, without reference to any FSK you are relying upon.

The FSK is observation itself given observation is both the FSK and what makes the FSK. Observation is grounded in the assuming (being imprinted by) of repeatable patterns and change of one pattern to another.

In observing the inherent emptiness of all phenomenon one is left with the grounding position of it being pure observation itself.

You cannot say a FSK can stand alone when it depends upon further observations and FSKs to justify it.

The FSK of Observation is a very limited, i.e. it merely provide its output to other FSKs, e.g. scientific, psychology, etc.
Observation is limited to the senses.

Whatever the FSK, it is conditioned by human interventions.

You don't observe your 'emptiness of all phenomenon' that is a logical inference using Pure Reason which is very crude.

The FSK you are relying upon is that of the Metaphysics FSK.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[1]

The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural".

Metaphysics which has no convincing foundations nor proof is regarded as spurious by many rational philosophers, e.g.'

Metametaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[35] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a metametaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][36] or ontological deflationism.[37]

In the 16th century, Francis Bacon rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.

In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:

• If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it [metaphysics] can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

[38]

... he [Kant] followed Hume in rejecting much of previous metaphysics, ...

In the 1930s, A.J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[42] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it.

-ibid

What FSK do you use to justify science as the most credible FSK?

see:
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

Metaphysics is what determines proof as proof, there is no other FSK which defines the nature of proof other than metaphysics. The emptiness of all phenomena can be observed through metaphysics given the continual progression of one phenomenon to another, which is repeated, shows an inherent emptiness of the individual state.

Science does not determine proof as what constitutes what a proof actually is cannot be tested. In simpler terms there is no test for what constitutes proof other than repeatability, and what defines repeatability is subject to metaphysics. Science is an off branch of metaphysics.

Dually utility is not an FSK considering utility is subject to subjective parameters. What is deemed useful is deemed as subjective as what is subjective determines what has use. What has use for one person does not have use for another.