Two Senses of 'Objective'

[Iwannaplato]

1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
Philosophical Realism sense of objectivity is to the extent that if no one is cognizing the moon, the moon still exists as real & independent of any human entanglement.
As such, there are no objective moral facts because moral expressions can only be made by humans. If there are no humans there are no objective moral facts.

I don't see objectivity used in this way by realists. Yes, realists believe there is a mind-independent reality. But when they talk about objectivity, they are talking about the way the person arrives at conclusions. That the process is dispassionate, using logic and empirical support, etc. His objectivity was in question. He was the brother of the researcher he was reviewing.

Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.

From Stanford philosophy encyc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
Philosophical Realism sense of objectivity is to the extent that if no one is cognizing the moon, the moon still exists as real & independent of any human entanglement.
As such, there are no objective moral facts because moral expressions can only be made by humans. If there are no humans there are no objective moral facts.

I don't see objectivity used in this way by realists. Yes, realists believe there is a mind-independent reality. But when they talk about objectivity, they are talking about the way the person arrives at conclusions. That the process is dispassionate, using logic and empirical support, etc. His objectivity was in question. He was the brother of the researcher he was reviewing.

Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.

From Stanford philosophy encyc.

Realists do consider the way the person arrives at a conclusion as objective, but that which is objective [and its objectivity] must be related to reality and things that are mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.


There are many senses to objectivity and the OP is about two main senses.

The "objectivity" as quoted from SEP is the general sense of objectivity which is the FSK sense, i.e. related to the scientific FSK.

But the realists [philosophical] ground the above objectivity to objective-reality that is mind-independent, note the below;

• The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object.
  The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it.
  In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.
  Many philosophers would use the term “objective reality” to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.).
  “Objective knowledge” can simply refer to knowledge of an objective reality.
  https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

In the above case, what are objective things and objective reality is that which exists as mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.
I have argued the p-realists has adopted the above objectivity as an ideology driven by an evolutionary default.
To p-realists what is objectivity must be grounded on their supposed mind-independent objects or things.

Note PH and his like claim that Morality is not objective [no objectivity to morality], on the basis that there are no moral facts [objects] that are mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.

My point with the OP is,
if objectivity can be applied to science [as in the SEP article] why not morality?
If we can FSK-ed science, we can also FSK-ed morality while leaving the question of how credible is the Moral-FSK as compared to the scientific FSK [the most credible as the standard].
PH and other moral facts deniers just cannot simply declare 'morality cannot be objective' i.e. there is no objectivity with morality.

[Atla]

My point with the OP is,
if objectivity can be applied to science [as in the SEP article] why not morality?

Because science probably deals with very close to 100% mind-independent things, and morality probably doesn't.

Don't worry, once you turn eight you'll get it too like everyone else.

[Iwannaplato]

Realists do consider the way the person arrives at a conclusion as objective, but that which is objective [and its objectivity] must be related to reality and things that are mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.

Well, yes, that's realism. But when deciding if something (a process, an argument, a protocol) is objective, they aren't checking to see if the person is relating to a mind-independent reality.

There are many senses to objectivity and the OP is about two main senses.

The "objectivity" as quoted from SEP is the general sense of objectivity which is the FSK sense, i.e. related to the scientific FSK.

But the realists [philosophical] ground the above objectivity to objective-reality that is mind-independent, note the below;

Yeah, well, that's realism.

• The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object.
  The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it.
  In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

As it would be for antirealist: they would also be interested in truth and reliability. Reality would mean something different to them, it's mind dependent.

In the above case, what are objective things and objective reality is that which exists as mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.
I have argued the p-realists has adopted the above objectivity as an ideology driven by an evolutionary default.
To p-realists what is objectivity must be grounded on their supposed mind-independent objects or things.

Well, even the realist scientist is going to ground objectivity on observations and methodologies they consider objective. They can't submit a paper with the things in themselves. They submit papers with data about observations, that hopefully will be refound by other scientists. They will consider their work objective if the methodology is logical, isolates variables and so on.

Yes, they think that there are objects that do not depend on the existence of human minds to exist. That how they view ontology. But objectivity is all about rigorous methodology and repeatable results. It's empirical, generally.

Note PH and his like claim that Morality is not objective [no objectivity to morality], on the basis that there are no moral facts [objects] that are mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.

My point with the OP is,
if objectivity can be applied to science [as in the SEP article] why not morality?
If we can FSK-ed science, we can also FSK-ed morality while leaving the question of how credible is the Moral-FSK as compared to the scientific FSK [the most credible as the standard].

There is no single moral-FSK. I think this is one of the biggest hurdles. You refer repeatedly to THE moral FSK. But there are many moral FSKs. Science, for example, as part of it's rigor eliminates cultural effects, for example. Catholic scientists in Potrugal and atheist scientists in England will reach the same results.
If you have Spartans who focus on nobility and certain specific traits as the goals of morality and compare them to a modern professor's consequentialist morality with other values, we have no scientific process to determine which of them is objective.
Let's say you decide to evaluate each on how good people feel in those frameworks...
that's a value judgment that you have that the two Moral FSK should be evaluated by how people thrive in them. That's either siding with the consequentialist or coming from a 3rd Moral FSK.
Let's say you focus on surival.
That is also a value judgment from a particular moral FSK. We should prioritize survival first. But to a Spartan nobility of character might be the priority, survival be damned. (and there are moden spartans). We can't run to the microscope to see who is right. Because each Moral FSK includes its own criteria for evaluating the FSKs.

PH and other moral facts deniers just cannot simply declare 'morality cannot be objective' i.e. there is no objectivity with morality.

Well, it seems like PH doesn't just declare this, but goes on to give his reasoning.

[Iwannaplato]

My point with the OP is,
if objectivity can be applied to science [as in the SEP article] why not morality?

Because science probably deals with very close to 100% mind-independent things, and morality probably doesn't.

Don't worry, once you turn eight you'll get it too like everyone else.

And then there's the flexible values and thus Moral FSKs we have. With science you can generally come up with a way to compare the results of two differing scientific conclusions.

With Moral FSKs - VA always refers to them as if there was one (The Moral FSK) - the moral FSKs themselves include differing criteria for how we would evaluate a moral FSK.

I went into this a bit more above.

[Sculptor]

'Objective' is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;

There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Realists do consider the way the person arrives at a conclusion as objective, but that which is objective [and its objectivity] must be related to reality and things that are mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.

Well, yes, that's realism. But when deciding if something (a process, an argument, a protocol) is objective, they aren't checking to see if the person is relating to a mind-independent reality.

There are many senses to objectivity and the OP is about two main senses.

The "objectivity" as quoted from SEP is the general sense of objectivity which is the FSK sense, i.e. related to the scientific FSK.

But the realists [philosophical] ground the above objectivity to objective-reality that is mind-independent, note the below;

Yeah, well, that's realism.

• The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object.
  The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it.
  In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

As it would be for antirealist: they would also be interested in truth and reliability. Reality would mean something different to them, it's mind dependent.

With philosophical realists we are referring specifically to a belief that is ideological, is not about these ( process, an argument, a protocol) in general.
P-realists do "check" to see whether "the person is relating to a mind-independent reality" or not.
If anyone who believe in antirealism, i.e. non-mind-independent-reality, p-realists [some not all] will jump at antirealists to trash & mock them or in extreme cases, kill them.

In the above case, what are objective things and objective reality is that which exists as mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.
I have argued the p-realists has adopted the above objectivity as an ideology driven by an evolutionary default.
To p-realists what is objectivity must be grounded on their supposed mind-independent objects or things.

Well, even the realist scientist is going to ground objectivity on observations and methodologies they consider objective. They can't submit a paper with the things in themselves. They submit papers with data about observations, that hopefully will be refound by other scientists. They will consider their work objective if the methodology is logical, isolates variables and so on.

Yes, they think that there are objects that do not depend on the existence of human minds to exist. That how they view ontology. But objectivity is all about rigorous methodology and repeatable results. It's empirical, generally.

Objectivity is not ALL about methodology. I have already presented the various perspectives of 'what is objectivity' somewhere. see OP and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
You are conflating the different perspectives of objectivity, i.e.
1. Methodology
2. Ontology.

Note PH and his like claim that Morality is not objective [no objectivity to morality], on the basis that there are no moral facts [objects] that are mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.

My point with the OP is,
if objectivity can be applied to science [as in the SEP article] why not morality?
If we can FSK-ed science, we can also FSK-ed morality while leaving the question of how credible is the Moral-FSK as compared to the scientific FSK [the most credible as the standard].

There is no single moral-FSK.
I think this is one of the biggest hurdles.
You refer repeatedly to THE moral FSK.
But there are many moral FSKs.
Science, for example, as part of it's rigor eliminates cultural effects, for example. Catholic scientists in Potrugal and atheist scientists in England will reach the same results.
If you have Spartans who focus on nobility and certain specific traits as the goals of morality and compare them to a modern professor's consequentialist morality with other values, we have no scientific process to determine which of them is objective.
Let's say you decide to evaluate each on how good people feel in those frameworks...
that's a value judgment that you have that the two Moral FSK should be evaluated by how people thrive in them. That's either siding with the consequentialist or coming from a 3rd Moral FSK.
Let's say you focus on survival.
That is also a value judgment from a particular moral FSK. We should prioritize survival first. But to a Spartan nobility of character might be the priority, survival be damned. (and there are moden spartans). We can't run to the microscope to see who is right. Because each Moral FSK includes its own criteria for evaluating the FSKs.

You are not thinking deeply and widely in this case.

Analogy:

• Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

The above systematic processes is dealt within the main Scientific FSK, but there are many other sub-disciplines with its various sub-FSKs, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their sub-sub FSKs.
The "Framework" covers ALL necessary conditions [scientific methods, assumptions, peer reviews, etc.] that qualify 'science' as 'scientific'.

When I refer to THE Moral-FSK [THE Morality-proper-FSK], it is equivalent to the single main fundamental Scientific-FSK which has its sub-FSKs and sub-sub FSKs.
My focus is on THE Morality-proper-FSK, i.e. what is fundamental to Morality - morality-proper. I have not discussed the sub-Moral-FSKs in detail.

PH and other moral facts deniers just cannot simply declare 'morality cannot be objective' i.e. there is no objectivity with morality.

Well, it seems like PH doesn't just declare this, but goes on to give his reasoning.

PH raised two threads, i.e.
Is morality objective or subjective?
What could make morality objective?
which indicate he did not make the claim 'Morality cannot be Objective'
however his posts therein
implicate his view "Morality cannot be Objective", i.e.
he insisted 'ALL moral elements comprised of rights or wrongs choices'
where choices [can only be made by human subjects] is obviously subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Objective' is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;

There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge, and note also FSR = Framework and System of Realization of reality.
That you stoop so low to mock a FSK reflect your ignorance.

• Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

The above systematic processes is dealt within the main Scientific FSK, but there are many other sub-disciplines with its various sub-FSKs, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their sub-sub FSKs.
The "Framework" covers ALL necessary conditions [scientific methods, assumptions, peer reviews, etc.] that qualify 'science' as 'scientific'.

So by your thinking above;
FSK seems to be 'scientists' amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in the scientists' own head, therefore subjective.

In that case, you would be accusing scientists of chasing scientific truths which to you are subjective?

But, Scientific conclusions as facts and truths are claimed to be objective as conditioned upon the subjects-based scientific FSK.
Scientific objective is leveraged upon

• Intersubjective verifiability, the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

In your ignorance of the above, you are kicking your own ass.

[Walker]

The above systematic processes is dealt within the main Scientific FSK, but there are many other sub-disciplines with its various sub-FSKs, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their sub-sub FSKs.
The "Framework" covers ALL necessary conditions [scientific methods, assumptions, peer reviews, etc.] that qualify 'science' as 'scientific'.

For me, referring to FKS as FOKS (Framework Of Knowledge System) is more relatable, more easily remembered.

[Iwannaplato]

With philosophical realists we are referring specifically to a belief that is ideological, is not about these ( process, an argument, a protocol) in general.
P-realists do "check" to see whether "the person is relating to a mind-independent reality" or not.
If anyone who believe in antirealism, i.e. non-mind-independent-reality, p-realists [some not all] will jump at antirealists to trash & mock them or in extreme cases, kill them.

Can you provide evidence of an antirealist who was killed by a realist - and where this had anything to do with their ontologies?

In the above case, what are objective things and objective reality is that which exists as mind-independent or in PH's case independent of the human conditions.
I have argued the p-realists has adopted the above objectivity as an ideology driven by an evolutionary default.
To p-realists what is objectivity must be grounded on their supposed mind-independent objects or things.

Well, even the realist scientist is going to ground objectivity on observations and methodologies they consider objective. They can't submit a paper with the things in themselves. They submit papers with data about observations, that hopefully will be refound by other scientists. They will consider their work objective if the methodology is logical, isolates variables and so on.

Yes, they think that there are objects that do not depend on the existence of human minds to exist. That how they view ontology. But objectivity is all about rigorous methodology and repeatable results. It's empirical, generally.

Objectivity is not ALL about methodology.

It is for scientists, most of whom are realists, which was the category I was thinking of.

I have already presented the various perspectives of 'what is objectivity' somewhere. see OP and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
You are conflating the different perspectives of objectivity, i.e.
1. Methodology
2. Ontology.

No, I am pointing out what most people, and in this case realist scientists, are thinking about when they talk about objectivity. If you ask a scientist if they think conclusion X is objective or person y is being objective, they are going to talk about how that person reached that conclusion or how they were reasoning. They are not going to jump to ontology. Because that's not a word that comes up much for scientists or most realists. Most realists have never heard of ontology. Most scientists don't think about it so much. Cosmologists, physicists in general, yes to some degree.

There is no single moral-FSK.
I think this is one of the biggest hurdles.
You refer repeatedly to THE moral FSK.
But there are many moral FSKs.
Science, for example, as part of it's rigor eliminates cultural effects, for example. Catholic scientists in Potrugal and atheist scientists in England will reach the same results.
If you have Spartans who focus on nobility and certain specific traits as the goals of morality and compare them to a modern professor's consequentialist morality with other values, we have no scientific process to determine which of them is objective.
Let's say you decide to evaluate each on how good people feel in those frameworks...
that's a value judgment that you have that the two Moral FSK should be evaluated by how people thrive in them. That's either siding with the consequentialist or coming from a 3rd Moral FSK.
Let's say you focus on survival.
That is also a value judgment from a particular moral FSK. We should prioritize survival first. But to a Spartan nobility of character might be the priority, survival be damned. (and there are moden spartans). We can't run to the microscope to see who is right. Because each Moral FSK includes its own criteria for evaluating the FSKs.

You are not thinking deeply and widely in this case.

When you write and I criticize one of your arguments, I also think that you are not thinking deeply enough or correctly, in any case. Announcing it does nothing. It does not move the discussion forward. I assume when you respond to me and disagree, you think I have thought incorrectly in some way. I'd suggest skipping this kind of thing. I guarantee it's not just me that thinks it makes you look silly. You can, obviously, not care what anyone here thinks, but if you ever end up discussing ideas with others, they will also see this and silly.

Analogy:

• Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

The above systematic processes is dealt within the main Scientific FSK, but there are many other sub-disciplines with its various sub-FSKs, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their sub-sub FSKs.
The "Framework" covers ALL necessary conditions [scientific methods, assumptions, peer reviews, etc.] that qualify 'science' as 'scientific'.

When I refer to THE Moral-FSK [THE Morality-proper-FSK], it is equivalent to the single main fundamental Scientific-FSK which has its sub-FSKs and sub-sub FSKs.
My focus is on THE Morality-proper-FSK, i.e. what is fundamental to Morality - morality-proper. I have not discussed the sub-Moral-FSKs in detail.

Since you have said that objectivity is intersubjectivity. Please find me a few other humans who believe that the morality FSK is a subset of the Science FSK.

And you did not respond to my points.

PH and other moral facts deniers just cannot simply declare 'morality cannot be objective' i.e. there is no objectivity with morality.

Well, it seems like PH doesn't just declare this, but goes on to give his reasoning.

PH raised two threads, i.e.
Is morality objective or subjective?
What could make morality objective?
which indicate he did not make the claim 'Morality cannot be Objective'
however his posts therein
implicate his view "Morality cannot be Objective", i.e.
he insisted 'ALL moral elements comprised of rights or wrongs choices'
where choices [can only be made by human subjects] is obviously subjective.

You seem to have missed my point.

Here's what I said that you, in fact, and which you quoted above.

Well, it seems like PH doesn't just declare this, but goes on to give his reasoning.

He doesn't JUST declare it. He goes on to give his reasoning. Which he did many times in those threads.

[Sculptor]

'Objective' is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;

There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge, and note also FSR = Framework and System of Realization of reality.

Yes FSK and FSR - systems for Veritas to look into Veritas' prejudices

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above systematic processes is dealt within the main Scientific FSK, but there are many other sub-disciplines with its various sub-FSKs, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their sub-sub FSKs.
The "Framework" covers ALL necessary conditions [scientific methods, assumptions, peer reviews, etc.] that qualify 'science' as 'scientific'.

For me, referring to FKS as FOKS (Framework Of Knowledge System) is more relatable, more easily remembered.

Noted,
so
FORS (Framework Of Realization* System)
* realization of reality.

At the present I am too habitualized with FSK or FSR.
Will see whether I can gravitate to FOKS or FORS or maybe
FORKS, i.e. Framework of Realization & Knowledge System.

[Veritas Aequitas]

With philosophical realists we are referring specifically to a belief that is ideological, is not about these ( process, an argument, a protocol) in general.
P-realists do "check" to see whether "the person is relating to a mind-independent reality" or not.
If anyone who believe in antirealism, i.e. non-mind-independent-reality, p-realists [some not all] will jump at antirealists to trash & mock them or in extreme cases, kill them.

Can you provide evidence of an antirealist who was killed by a realist - and where this had anything to do with their ontologies?

I have mentioned this many times.
Note in extreme cases where philosophical realism is related to theism, i.e. where God exists as an absolutely mind independent entity.
Try giving a speech in a square somewhere in Taliban country, that 'Allah is a man-made God' and 'see' [if only you can see after death] what happened.

When you write and I criticize one of your arguments, I also think that you are not thinking deeply enough or correctly, in any case. Announcing it does nothing. It does not move the discussion forward. I assume when you respond to me and disagree, you think I have thought incorrectly in some way. I'd suggest skipping this kind of thing. I guarantee it's not just me that thinks it makes you look silly. You can, obviously, not care what anyone here thinks, but if you ever end up discussing ideas with others, they will also see this and silly.

Most of the time I am the one who is presenting a thesis.
I don't mind if someone critique that I have not not thought wide or specific enough and give their views.

You are not doing that but instead,
For example in the case of the evolutionary default of externalness which I present as an primal instinct in all and with the extension that, that instinct is adopted as an ideology.
Despite my explanation you still don't get it but keep accusing me I am wrong or confused.
This is why I insist your thinking is very narrow and shallow.
I wonder you have got it, if need to comment do it in the other thread.

Analogy:

• Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

The above systematic processes is dealt within the main Scientific FSK, but there are many other sub-disciplines with its various sub-FSKs, e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and their sub-sub FSKs.
The "Framework" covers ALL necessary conditions [scientific methods, assumptions, peer reviews, etc.] that qualify 'science' as 'scientific'.

When I refer to THE Moral-FSK [THE Morality-proper-FSK], it is equivalent to the single main fundamental Scientific-FSK which has its sub-FSKs and sub-sub FSKs.
My focus is on THE Morality-proper-FSK, i.e. what is fundamental to Morality - morality-proper. I have not discussed the sub-Moral-FSKs in detail.

Since you have said that objectivity is intersubjectivity. Please find me a few other humans who believe that the morality FSK is a subset of the Science FSK.

I did not claim that morality FSK is a subset of the Science FSK.

I stated:
When I refer to THE Moral-FSK [THE Morality-proper-FSK], it is equivalent to the single main fundamental Scientific-FSK which has its sub-FSKs and sub-sub FSKs.

The Morality-proper FSK is independent from the scientific-FSK.
However, the majority of inputs into the moral-proper FSK are from the scientific FSK.

It is not me, but there are scientists who claimed that the morality-FSK should be a subset of the scientific FSK;
I raised this thread:
Sociobiology of Morality
viewtopic.php?p=627699&hilit=wilson#p627699

• E O Wilson, in his book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis; made the following suggestion;
  Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized.
  Chapter 27

There are others like Sam Harris;
The behavior-analytic approach (which is largely compatible with Harris's efforts in The Moral Landscape) supports the superiority of a scientific approach to life, including questions of morality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/

[Veritas Aequitas]

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge, and note also FSR = Framework and System of Realization of reality.

Yes FSK and FSR - systems for Veritas to look into Veritas' prejudices

You stated earlier,

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

I have demonstrated the FSK is a model that is generic in all system of knowledge, where it is evident as objective in the scientific FSK.

If there are prejudices or bias in any FSK, the onus is on you to prove it.
As usual you are merely handwaving and provide no justifications.

[Sculptor]

FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge, and note also FSR = Framework and System of Realization of reality.

Yes FSK and FSR - systems for Veritas to look into Veritas' prejudices

You stated earlier,

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

I have demonstrated the FSK is a model that is generic in all system of knowledge, where it is evident as objective in the scientific FSK.

If there are prejudices or bias in any FSK, the onus is on you to prove it.
As usual you are merely handwaving and provide no justifications.

Proof: FSK does not exist outside your head. It is not a phrase accepted ouside your own mind.
Someone got there first buddy...

FSK stands for Frequency Shift Keying. It is a modulation technique used in telecommunications to transmit digital information over radio frequency signals. In FSK, digital data is transmitted by varying the frequency of the carrier signal between two different frequencies.

The basic idea behind FSK is that binary data (0s and 1s) are represented by different frequencies. For example, in a simple FSK system, one frequency might represent a binary '1' and another frequency might represent a binary '0'. As the data stream changes, the carrier frequency shifts accordingly between these predetermined frequencies.

There are two main types of FSK:

Binary FSK (BFSK): In BFSK, there are only two frequencies used to represent the binary states. One frequency represents a binary '1', and the other represents a binary '0'. This is the simplest form of FSK modulation.

Multiple Frequency Shift Keying (MFSK): MFSK extends FSK to use more than two frequencies, allowing it to transmit multiple bits simultaneously. Each combination of frequencies represents different combinations of bits, enabling higher data rates compared to BFSK.

FSK is commonly used in various communication systems, including telephone networks, radio transmission, data modems, and wireless technologies like Bluetooth and RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) systems.