Quantitative vs Qualitative

[FlashDangerpants]

Strawman.
That is the problem with dogmatic, narrow and shallow thinking.

I have stated clearly, I am not establishing absolute numbers i.e. merely relative numbers to an agreed standard.

Assigning science as the Standard and taking it at 100% objectivity does not in any way claim 'science is 100%' objective in the absolute sense.

For example, if I set the standard height of humans AT PRESENT at 1.7 meter, I can assign 100% or 100/100 to that height.
If a person is 1.4 meter, that would be 82% of the standard.
If a person is 1.9 meter that would be 111.8*% of the standard.
* actually, 111.76470588235294117647058823529%
As so on.
In this case of setting the standard of 1.7 meter as 100%, I am not stating that 1.7 meter is the maximum height of humans or in any absolute sense.

Similarly, when I set Science as the Standard at 100% objectivity, it is merely a reference point and not to be taken as absolute.
The only judgment is that the science FSK is the most credible and objective [based on an agreed set of criteria] AT PRESENT. It is possible humanity might be able to come up with some FSK that is more credible and objective [not absolute] than science.

The rest of the post is all strawmanning. I will not be bothered to defend.


I have already adopted ChatGpt's suggestions re the above in my approach and views.

If you used a ruler or something to measure the actual height of a person, that would be a measurement of an objective property.

How does that example help with you making up the number 56.7894% to represent the credibility score for Modern History and 33.5554% for Ancient History, and 42.54231464676% for History of Philosophy, and 91.00000000000000000000000000000000005% for philsophy of history? All of those are nonsense numbers and there is no ruler to arrive at them.

I have already explained, the "ruler" is the credibility and objectivity of the Scientific FSK as determined via
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Whatever the rating of the science-FSK established above from the exercise based on the criteria, say, the result is 85.01 points.
we take that 85.01 points as the STANDARD at 100%.
If we assess say [guess] the history FSK is 40.05 points, we divide this 40.05 by 85.01x100, we get
47.11210445829..% which can be rounded to 47.1%.
As such, the reading is, the credibility and objectivity rating of the history FSK is 47.1% relative to the scientific FSK.
If we do not want to convert with a 100% base, we can accept the results [85.01 pts, 47.1 pts] as assessed which is cumbersome.
Converting the results and comparing them on a 100% based is easier to understand.
What is the problem with this?

Note it is only a relative reading to give some sense of credibility and objectivity of a FSK to facilitate whatever utility is necessary.

What is most useful for this discussion re morality are those readings which are highly contrasting [science (100%) vs theology, philosophical realism ] or near to each other [science vs my-morality].

Intuitively, it is obvious the credibility and objectivity between science and theology is widely contrasting.
If you have any alternative, show me how can we be more effective in comparing the credibility and objectivity, say theology against science.

Your "ruler" doesn't measure, it assigns. Can you not understand the difference?

[Iwannaplato]

Your "ruler" doesn't measure, it assigns. Can you not understand the difference?

I've pointed this out in less concise language. Whenever he defends/explains his process, he uses things like height or points in a game. Quantities that are easily measurable and are terrible explanations for how he manages to come up with estimates, with decimal places, for fields of inquiry.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you used a ruler or something to measure the actual height of a person, that would be a measurement of an objective property.

How does that example help with you making up the number 56.7894% to represent the credibility score for Modern History and 33.5554% for Ancient History, and 42.54231464676% for History of Philosophy, and 91.00000000000000000000000000000000005% for philsophy of history? All of those are nonsense numbers and there is no ruler to arrive at them.

I have already explained, the "ruler" is the credibility and objectivity of the Scientific FSK as determined via
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Whatever the rating of the science-FSK established above from the exercise based on the criteria, say, the result is 85.01 points.
we take that 85.01 points as the STANDARD at 100%.
If we assess say [guess] the history FSK is 40.05 points, we divide this 40.05 by 85.01x100, we get
47.11210445829..% which can be rounded to 47.1%.
As such, the reading is, the credibility and objectivity rating of the history FSK is 47.1% relative to the scientific FSK.
If we do not want to convert with a 100% base, we can accept the results [85.01 pts, 47.1 pts] as assessed which is cumbersome.
Converting the results and comparing them on a 100% based is easier to understand.
What is the problem with this?

Note it is only a relative reading to give some sense of credibility and objectivity of a FSK to facilitate whatever utility is necessary.

What is most useful for this discussion re morality are those readings which are highly contrasting [science (100%) vs theology, philosophical realism ] or near to each other [science vs my-morality].

Intuitively, it is obvious the credibility and objectivity between science and theology is widely contrasting.
If you have any alternative, show me how can we be more effective in comparing the credibility and objectivity, say theology against science.

Your "ruler" doesn't measure, it assigns. Can you not understand the difference?

Not sure where you are heading.
What do you mean by "assigns".

Note all standards of measurements are invented by humans.
There is no such thing as an absolute standard.
The 'foot' originate with reference someone's foot and values.
Therefrom measurements are assigned based on a 'human invented standard'.

At present, all standards of measurement are pre-agreed by a community of humans.

What I did in the above is no difference from the above of setting standard.
I don't see how you view the difference or whatever you intend to mean.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have already explained, the "ruler" is the credibility and objectivity of the Scientific FSK as determined via
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

Whatever the rating of the science-FSK established above from the exercise based on the criteria, say, the result is 85.01 points.
we take that 85.01 points as the STANDARD at 100%.
If we assess say [guess] the history FSK is 40.05 points, we divide this 40.05 by 85.01x100, we get
47.11210445829..% which can be rounded to 47.1%.
As such, the reading is, the credibility and objectivity rating of the history FSK is 47.1% relative to the scientific FSK.
If we do not want to convert with a 100% base, we can accept the results [85.01 pts, 47.1 pts] as assessed which is cumbersome.
Converting the results and comparing them on a 100% based is easier to understand.
What is the problem with this?

Note it is only a relative reading to give some sense of credibility and objectivity of a FSK to facilitate whatever utility is necessary.

What is most useful for this discussion re morality are those readings which are highly contrasting [science (100%) vs theology, philosophical realism ] or near to each other [science vs my-morality].

Intuitively, it is obvious the credibility and objectivity between science and theology is widely contrasting.
If you have any alternative, show me how can we be more effective in comparing the credibility and objectivity, say theology against science.

Your "ruler" doesn't measure, it assigns. Can you not understand the difference?

Not sure where you are heading.
What do you mean by "assigns".

Note all standards of measurements are invented by humans.
There is no such thing as an absolute standard.
The 'foot' originate with reference someone's foot and values.
Therefrom measurements are assigned based on a 'human invented standard'.

At present, all standards of measurement are pre-agreed by a community of humans.

What I did in the above is no difference from the above of setting standard.
I don't see how you view the difference or whatever you intend to mean.

You actually can't tell the difference between measuring a property such as length and just making up a number?
The difference between this mouse is '12 cm from snout to tail' and 'that mouse is too short, I give it 3 stars out of 17' shouldn't need this much explaining.

[Skepdick]

Your "ruler" doesn't measure, it assigns. Can you not understand the difference?

That is literally how ALL scientific measurement units are established.

A meter wasn't measured - it was assigned.
A kilogram wasn't measured - it was assigned.
A second wasn't measured - it was assigned.
The boiling point of water wasn't measured - it was assigned.

The reference object/gold standard is always an arbitrary human choice. It's called the unit type.

Philosophy is like a magic show, where the illusionist perpetually falls for their own sleight of hand.

Wake up, bozo.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You actually can't tell the difference between measuring a property such as length and just making up a number?

The difference between this mouse is '12 cm from snout to tail' and 'that mouse is too short, I give it 3 stars out of 17' shouldn't need this much explaining.

I cannot understand your '3 stars out of 17' thingy.
Do you mean 3 stars out of 17 stars? or what?

If the 12cm mouse is too short in contrast to a 17cm mouse, then there is a lot more explaining to do.

I presume you are taking 17cm is the average length of all mouse in general.
In that case 12cm is too short [subjective] from the average of 17cm?
This is 70.588% [(12/17)x100] from the average mouse length.
In this case, you are taking 17cm as the standard length [100%] of the average mouse.

When you say 3 stars, it is out of how many stars? 5, 10, 20, ??
I would infer the following'
12cm is 3 stars
12cm is 70.588 of 17.
Therefore it must be 3 stars out of 4.25 stars. (3/70.588)x100.

If that is the case, the mouse is not that "too short" compare to one that is say 8 cm.

Is my above explanation same as what you intend to convey?
(shouldn't need this much explaining??)
Note the amount of explaining I need to do.

If that is the case, it is no different from what I had been proposing, except instead of mouse-length, my variable is degree of 'objectivity'.
You may like the measure re degrees of objectivity, but it is the same as your method above, thus not the number is not make-up.

It is only make-up if I simply blurt out a number out of the blue without any systematic model, method and justifications.

See instead of accusing me of making up numbers, you are making up arguments without understanding the above computational methods.

[FlashDangerpants]

You actually can't tell the difference between measuring a property such as length and just making up a number?

The difference between this mouse is '12 cm from snout to tail' and 'that mouse is too short, I give it 3 stars out of 17' shouldn't need this much explaining.

I cannot understand your '3 stars out of 17' thingy.
Do you mean 3 stars out of 17 stars? or what?

If the 12cm mouse is too short in contrast to a 17cm mouse, then there is a lot more explaining to do.

I presume you are taking 17cm is the average length of all mouse in general.
In that case 12cm is too short [subjective] from the average of 17cm?
This is 70.588% [(12/17)x100] from the average mouse length.
In this case, you are taking 17cm as the standard length [100%] of the average mouse.

When you say 3 stars, it is out of how many stars? 5, 10, 20, ??
I would infer the following'
12cm is 3 stars
12cm is 70.588 of 17.
Therefore it must be 3 stars out of 4.25 stars. (3/70.588)x100.

If that is the case, the mouse is not that "too short" compare to one that is say 8 cm.

Is my above explanation same as what you intend to convey?
(shouldn't need this much explaining??)
Note the amount of explaining I need to do.

If that is the case, it is no different from what I had been proposing, except instead of mouse-length, my variable is degree of 'objectivity'.
You may like the measure re degrees of objectivity, but it is the same as your method above, thus not the number is not make-up.

It is only make-up if I simply blurt out a number out of the blue without any systematic model, method and justifications.

See instead of accusing me of making up numbers, you are making up arguments without understanding the above computational methods.

That's a weird rant. There is a difference of type between measurements of the public properties of an object (actual objectivity) and made up numbers you create for the purpose of describing something unmeasurable in quantitative terms. They are not the same sort of thing at all.

If you cannot even aknowledge that simple observation, your entire FSK is doomed. You are going to fail, no matter how many years you spend repeating yourself unless you address this issue properly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You actually can't tell the difference between measuring a property such as length and just making up a number?

The difference between this mouse is '12 cm from snout to tail' and 'that mouse is too short, I give it 3 stars out of 17' shouldn't need this much explaining.

I cannot understand your '3 stars out of 17' thingy.
Do you mean 3 stars out of 17 stars? or what?

If the 12cm mouse is too short in contrast to a 17cm mouse, then there is a lot more explaining to do.

I presume you are taking 17cm is the average length of all mouse in general.
In that case 12cm is too short [subjective] from the average of 17cm?
This is 70.588% [(12/17)x100] from the average mouse length.
In this case, you are taking 17cm as the standard length [100%] of the average mouse.

When you say 3 stars, it is out of how many stars? 5, 10, 20, ??
I would infer the following'
12cm is 3 stars
12cm is 70.588 of 17.
Therefore it must be 3 stars out of 4.25 stars. (3/70.588)x100.

If that is the case, the mouse is not that "too short" compare to one that is say 8 cm.

Is my above explanation same as what you intend to convey?
(shouldn't need this much explaining??)
Note the amount of explaining I need to do.

If that is the case, it is no different from what I had been proposing, except instead of mouse-length, my variable is degree of 'objectivity'.
You may like the measure re degrees of objectivity, but it is the same as your method above, thus not the number is not make-up.

It is only make-up if I simply blurt out a number out of the blue without any systematic model, method and justifications.

See instead of accusing me of making up numbers, you are making up arguments without understanding the above computational methods.

That's a weird rant. There is a difference of type between measurements of the public properties of an object (actual objectivity) and made up numbers you create for the purpose of describing something unmeasurable in quantitative terms. They are not the same sort of thing at all.

If you cannot even aknowledge that simple observation, your entire FSK is doomed. You are going to fail, no matter how many years you spend repeating yourself unless you address this issue properly.

Simple?? I saw a mess and tried to clarify.

I believe what you have failed to understand because of your dogmatic clinging to a mind-independent sense of objectivity which is illusory;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The philosophical realist mind independent sense of objectivity.
2. The human-based FSK-ed sense of objectivity.

You are stuck with 1 thus unable to understand [not necessary agree with] my 2.

You need to remove those dogmatic blinkers of ignorance [re 1] first.

From my 2 above, I argued,

FSK-ed Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is FSK-ed Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

[FlashDangerpants]

I cannot understand your '3 stars out of 17' thingy.
Do you mean 3 stars out of 17 stars? or what?

If the 12cm mouse is too short in contrast to a 17cm mouse, then there is a lot more explaining to do.

I presume you are taking 17cm is the average length of all mouse in general.
In that case 12cm is too short [subjective] from the average of 17cm?
This is 70.588% [(12/17)x100] from the average mouse length.
In this case, you are taking 17cm as the standard length [100%] of the average mouse.

When you say 3 stars, it is out of how many stars? 5, 10, 20, ??
I would infer the following'
12cm is 3 stars
12cm is 70.588 of 17.
Therefore it must be 3 stars out of 4.25 stars. (3/70.588)x100.

If that is the case, the mouse is not that "too short" compare to one that is say 8 cm.

Is my above explanation same as what you intend to convey?
(shouldn't need this much explaining??)
Note the amount of explaining I need to do.

If that is the case, it is no different from what I had been proposing, except instead of mouse-length, my variable is degree of 'objectivity'.
You may like the measure re degrees of objectivity, but it is the same as your method above, thus not the number is not make-up.

It is only make-up if I simply blurt out a number out of the blue without any systematic model, method and justifications.

See instead of accusing me of making up numbers, you are making up arguments without understanding the above computational methods.

That's a weird rant. There is a difference of type between measurements of the public properties of an object (actual objectivity) and made up numbers you create for the purpose of describing something unmeasurable in quantitative terms. They are not the same sort of thing at all.

If you cannot even aknowledge that simple observation, your entire FSK is doomed. You are going to fail, no matter how many years you spend repeating yourself unless you address this issue properly.

Simple?? I saw a mess and tried to clarify.

I believe what you have failed to understand because of your dogmatic clinging to a mind-independent sense of objectivity which is illusory;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The philosophical realist mind independent sense of objectivity.
2. The human-based FSK-ed sense of objectivity.

You are stuck with 1 thus unable to understand [not necessary agree with] my 2.

You need to remove those dogmatic blinkers of ignorance [re 1] first.

From my 2 above, I argued,

FSK-ed Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is FSK-ed Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

There is a difference of type between measurements of the public properties of an object (actual objectivity) and made up numbers you create for the purpose of describing something unmeasurable in quantitative terms.

You hope to publish your work as a serious academic don't you? If so, that sentence above, you need to deal with it properly. Trying to hide the issue under some blather isn't working.

[Iwannaplato]

You actually can't tell the difference between measuring a property such as length and just making up a number?
The difference between this mouse is '12 cm from snout to tail' and 'that mouse is too short, I give it 3 stars out of 17' shouldn't need this much explaining.

Or, at least, he could show the process in a step by step way. He refers to that list of qualities science and other FSK are evaluated by. Even though there is a qualitative difference between mouse length and some of those categories, he could show us how he goes from science and other fields at gets a rating. And what epistemological process he used to do this.

1. Testability & falsifiability
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Repeatability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness
9. internal consistency:
10. explanatory power
11. predictiveness / predictive power

Like coming up with a number for 'precision' or 'abstractness', etc. How does he move toward a field like science with his criteria and evaulate science (as a whole, current science, the history of scientific methodology and models?) to get a number? In steps.
And what FSK does he use to evaluate the verifiability of science?

It would be ridiculous to present the results with numbers with decimal places and there would be tremendous room for error. It'd be numbers for words. But if he actually did this, at least it would be vastly more relevant than his examples like measuring mouse length.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
It would be ridiculous to present the results with numbers with decimal places and there would be tremendous room for error. It'd be numbers for words. But if he actually did this, at least it would be vastly more relevant than his examples like measuring mouse length.

Decimal places can always be rounded up e.g.

100 [99.9999] vs 0 [0.0001].

FDP presenting mouse length is a mess and is not that useful.

How I presented mouse-lengths [the methodology] has utilities to farmers, rat-poison manufacturers, pest-controls, town councils and the like.

[FlashDangerpants]

.........
It would be ridiculous to present the results with numbers with decimal places and there would be tremendous room for error. It'd be numbers for words. But if he actually did this, at least it would be vastly more relevant than his examples like measuring mouse length.

Decimal places can always be rounded up e.g.

100 [99.9999] vs 0 [0.0001].

FDP presenting mouse length is a mess and is not that useful.

How I presented mouse-lengths [the methodology] has utilities to farmers, rat-poison manufacturers, pest-controls, town councils and the like.

That merely modifies a made up number, the result is just a tidier made up number.

If I estimate your height in Amrican units to be 6 feet and one inch, which is around 185 CM (rounded down!), then I can actually be more or less right or wrong about an actual object's true height. If you are actually 164 CM (rounded up!) there is an amount of height that I misjudged and it is a true and knowable fact that I have erred to the tune of roughly 21 CM.

Conversely, if you have an FSK crediblity manufacturing system that uses your opinion about the reliability of history in comparison to science to assert that history is 47.6% credible.... and if I make my own FSK thing which uses a different metric such as suitability for answering specific sorts of question instead of resemblance to science as the means for determining, then I will grant history a significantly different credibility scope of 88%.

Unlike your height, there is no actual property to measure for history and both of us are just making up numbers. I was objectively wrong about the height, but Iam not objectively wrong about the 88% nor is there any possbile objective basis for me to be wrong on a made up number.

This is a clear difference of type. You do need to take this criticism seriously unless you want to fail forever.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
It would be ridiculous to present the results with numbers with decimal places and there would be tremendous room for error. It'd be numbers for words. But if he actually did this, at least it would be vastly more relevant than his examples like measuring mouse length.

Decimal places can always be rounded up e.g.

100 [99.9999] vs 0 [0.0001].

FDP presenting mouse length is a mess and is not that useful.

How I presented mouse-lengths [the methodology] has utilities to farmers, rat-poison manufacturers, pest-controls, town councils and the like.

That merely modifies a made up number, the result is just a tidier made up number.

If I estimate your height in Amrican units to be 6 feet and one inch, which is around 185 CM (rounded down!), then I can actually be more or less right or wrong about an actual object's true height. If you are actually 164 CM (rounded up!) there is an amount of height that I misjudged and it is a true and knowable fact that I have erred to the tune of roughly 21 CM.

Conversely, if you have an FSK crediblity manufacturing system that uses your opinion about the reliability of history in comparison to science to assert that history is 47.6% credible.... and if I make my own FSK thing which uses a different metric such as suitability for answering specific sorts of question instead of resemblance to science as the means for determining, then I will grant history a significantly different credibility scope of 88%.

Unlike your height, there is no actual property to measure for history and both of us are just making up numbers. I was objectively wrong about the height, but Iam not objectively wrong about the 88% nor is there any possbile objective basis for me to be wrong on a made up number.

This is a clear difference of type. You do need to take this criticism seriously unless you want to fail forever.

In assessing the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs, everyone must agree to a selected set of criteria, i.e. there must be a common denominator, thus, using the same set of criteria for all assessments of FSKs.
Without agreement to a same set of criteria to be used, that would be a non-starter.

One necessary fundamental basis is, all those who agree must have a reasonable degree of rationality and critical thinking ability at least to the critical variable.
That some theistic religions [fundamentally irrational] have agreed with certain scientific facts, these theists must have agreed to the fundamental criteria of the scientific-FSK, .e.g. empirical-evidence-based, verifiability, etc.

Thus when comparing the credibility and objectivity for science and say, history, both assessment must use the same set of criteria.
Science [at its best*] relies on a focus on direct empirical evidence based on observations on the present as much as possible.
History [at its best] relies on indirect [do not focus on] empirical evidences of the past and expert opinions.
* i.e. comparing the different "at their best" not the best-of-one with the worst-of-another.

That science [the best of] focus on the present and that History [at its best] is based on the past [that cannot be repeated in the future] is already a clue on why History cannot be more credible than science.

If direct empirical evidence has a weightage of 0.75/1.00, it is obvious the final result that the credibility and objectivity [based on the same set of criteria] of history [do not rely on direct empirical evidence] will be significantly lower than that of science's.
Get it? hope you do to save me time, if not, I will give further explanations.

So, with Science as the most credible and objective, the comparison for theology, history, linguistic, economics, politics, legal, etc. must be based on the same set of criteria.

Where parties cannot reach upon a same set of criteria, they must trash it out [based on rationality and critical thinking] to reach consensus.
It is unlikely that any rational person will reject the criteria of empirical evidence based on evidence, indirect empirical evidences, verifiability, testability, falsifiability and the like as the critical criteria.
The very religious theists, e.g. Newton, Mendel and a whole load of scientist who are theists had agreed to the above criteria that support the credibility and objectivity of science.

It is unlikely any rational person will reject the major criteria within the same set of criteria. If they do not accept certain criteria [likely to be insignificant] they can qualify those exclusions when using the ratings on FSKs based on the same set of criteria.

That same set of criteria to be used for all FSKs is not carved in stones, but can be changed only when very necessary.

[FlashDangerpants]

Decimal places can always be rounded up e.g.

100 [99.9999] vs 0 [0.0001].

FDP presenting mouse length is a mess and is not that useful.

How I presented mouse-lengths [the methodology] has utilities to farmers, rat-poison manufacturers, pest-controls, town councils and the like.

That merely modifies a made up number, the result is just a tidier made up number.

If I estimate your height in Amrican units to be 6 feet and one inch, which is around 185 CM (rounded down!), then I can actually be more or less right or wrong about an actual object's true height. If you are actually 164 CM (rounded up!) there is an amount of height that I misjudged and it is a true and knowable fact that I have erred to the tune of roughly 21 CM.

Conversely, if you have an FSK crediblity manufacturing system that uses your opinion about the reliability of history in comparison to science to assert that history is 47.6% credible.... and if I make my own FSK thing which uses a different metric such as suitability for answering specific sorts of question instead of resemblance to science as the means for determining, then I will grant history a significantly different credibility scope of 88%.

Unlike your height, there is no actual property to measure for history and both of us are just making up numbers. I was objectively wrong about the height, but Iam not objectively wrong about the 88% nor is there any possbile objective basis for me to be wrong on a made up number.

This is a clear difference of type. You do need to take this criticism seriously unless you want to fail forever.

In assessing the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs, everyone must agree to a selected set of criteria, i.e. there must be a common denominator, thus, using the same set of criteria for all assessments of FSKs.
Without agreement to a same set of criteria to be used, that would be a non-starter.

One necessary fundamental basis is, all those who agree must have a reasonable degree of rationality and critical thinking ability at least to the critical variable.
That some theistic religions [fundamentally irrational] have agreed with certain scientific facts, these theists must have agreed to the fundamental criteria of the scientific-FSK, .e.g. empirical-evidence-based, verifiability, etc.

Thus when comparing the credibility and objectivity for science and say, history, both assessment must use the same set of criteria.
Science [at its best*] relies on a focus on direct empirical evidence based on observations on the present as much as possible.
History [at its best] relies on indirect [do not focus on] empirical evidences of the past and expert opinions.
* i.e. comparing the different "at their best" not the best-of-one with the worst-of-another.

That science [the best of] focus on the present and that History [at its best] is based on the past [that cannot be repeated in the future] is already a clue on why History cannot be more credible than science.

If direct empirical evidence has a weightage of 0.75/1.00, it is obvious the final result that the credibility and objectivity [based on the same set of criteria] of history [do not rely on direct empirical evidence] will be significantly lower than that of science's.
Get it? hope you do to save me time, if not, I will give further explanations.

So, with Science as the most credible and objective, the comparison for theology, history, linguistic, economics, politics, legal, etc. must be based on the same set of criteria.

Where parties cannot reach upon a same set of criteria, they must trash it out [based on rationality and critical thinking] to reach consensus.
It is unlikely that any rational person will reject the criteria of empirical evidence based on evidence, indirect empirical evidences, verifiability, testability, falsifiability and the like as the critical criteria.
The very religious theists, e.g. Newton, Mendel and a whole load of scientist who are theists had agreed to the above criteria that support the credibility and objectivity of science.

It is unlikely any rational person will reject the major criteria within the same set of criteria. If they do not accept certain criteria [likely to be insignificant] they can qualify those exclusions when using the ratings on FSKs based on the same set of criteria.

That same set of criteria to be used for all FSKs is not carved in stones, but can be changed only when very necessary.

That's just a longer recipe for cooking made up numbers than the previous one.

There is still a difference of type between a measurement and whatever name you are giving to all that assessing you are describing there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That merely modifies a made up number, the result is just a tidier made up number.

If I estimate your height in Amrican units to be 6 feet and one inch, which is around 185 CM (rounded down!), then I can actually be more or less right or wrong about an actual object's true height. If you are actually 164 CM (rounded up!) there is an amount of height that I misjudged and it is a true and knowable fact that I have erred to the tune of roughly 21 CM.

Conversely, if you have an FSK crediblity manufacturing system that uses your opinion about the reliability of history in comparison to science to assert that history is 47.6% credible.... and if I make my own FSK thing which uses a different metric such as suitability for answering specific sorts of question instead of resemblance to science as the means for determining, then I will grant history a significantly different credibility scope of 88%.

Unlike your height, there is no actual property to measure for history and both of us are just making up numbers. I was objectively wrong about the height, but Iam not objectively wrong about the 88% nor is there any possbile objective basis for me to be wrong on a made up number.

This is a clear difference of type. You do need to take this criticism seriously unless you want to fail forever.

In assessing the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs, everyone must agree to a selected set of criteria, i.e. there must be a common denominator, thus, using the same set of criteria for all assessments of FSKs.
Without agreement to a same set of criteria to be used, that would be a non-starter.

One necessary fundamental basis is, all those who agree must have a reasonable degree of rationality and critical thinking ability at least to the critical variable.
That some theistic religions [fundamentally irrational] have agreed with certain scientific facts, these theists must have agreed to the fundamental criteria of the scientific-FSK, .e.g. empirical-evidence-based, verifiability, etc.

Thus when comparing the credibility and objectivity for science and say, history, both assessment must use the same set of criteria.
Science [at its best*] relies on a focus on direct empirical evidence based on observations on the present as much as possible.
History [at its best] relies on indirect [do not focus on] empirical evidences of the past and expert opinions.
* i.e. comparing the different "at their best" not the best-of-one with the worst-of-another.

That science [the best of] focus on the present and that History [at its best] is based on the past [that cannot be repeated in the future] is already a clue on why History cannot be more credible than science.

If direct empirical evidence has a weightage of 0.75/1.00, it is obvious the final result that the credibility and objectivity [based on the same set of criteria] of history [do not rely on direct empirical evidence] will be significantly lower than that of science's.
Get it? hope you do to save me time, if not, I will give further explanations.

So, with Science as the most credible and objective, the comparison for theology, history, linguistic, economics, politics, legal, etc. must be based on the same set of criteria.

Where parties cannot reach upon a same set of criteria, they must trash it out [based on rationality and critical thinking] to reach consensus.
It is unlikely that any rational person will reject the criteria of empirical evidence based on evidence, indirect empirical evidences, verifiability, testability, falsifiability and the like as the critical criteria.
The very religious theists, e.g. Newton, Mendel and a whole load of scientist who are theists had agreed to the above criteria that support the credibility and objectivity of science.

It is unlikely any rational person will reject the major criteria within the same set of criteria. If they do not accept certain criteria [likely to be insignificant] they can qualify those exclusions when using the ratings on FSKs based on the same set of criteria.

That same set of criteria to be used for all FSKs is not carved in stones, but can be changed only when very necessary.

That's just a longer recipe for cooking made up numbers than the previous one.

There is still a difference of type between a measurement and whatever name you are giving to all that assessing you are describing there.

I am interested.
I still do not understand your basis of "cooking made up numbers"? because what I am doing is being done commonly in rating and comparison in the various fields of knowledge.

For example in sports, e.g. that is an objective fact [i.e. a fact of sports] that Simone Biles is the 2023 Women Overall World Champion based on the criteria and weightages agreed by the International Gymnastics Federation and those who participated in the competition and all those who reported on the results.
It is the same for all fields of knowledge which made such ratings.

Can you explain in simpler terms what is the basis of your disagreement?