Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated

[FlashDangerpants]

The point with participating in more a serious philosophical "arena" [.. I am member in a few] one cannot treat it like a note book for jotting out one's thoughts [whenever it pops out] freely.

Why have you jotted the same thought "a million times"? What sort of weirdo does that?

How come you are so ignorant with the better techniques in learning knowledge?

• Repetition is a key factor in memory and memorization. When we repeat something, we are more likely to remember it later. This is because repetition helps to embed the information in our long-term memory. Additionally, repetition can help us better recall information when we need it.
  https://irisreading.com/how-does-repeti ... orization/

The above process of repetition is very common recommendation.

Is that why you have to lie about reading things, because you are too busy repeating a millin times that Pete's " 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion". Is there some risk that you cannot learn this information anyother way?

[EuPrattein]

Science and Theology are both subjective and both have changed drastically over the years. I couldn't care less about how big someone's FSK is, if someone wants to run around making life a great big statistical fallacy that's their prerogative, and if that's their passion I hope they find out something crazy awesome that can inform humanity.

In Ethics and Morals. gravitation towards objectivity is typical of those who require external stimuli to produce a reaction that says "No" to anything different, even in Science, which in the past 100 years we've discovered is fundamentally more insane the deeper we dive into it, the more our theories mean donk simply due to a different scale ... a different perspective. Science is far from being cycloptic (One unified study).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why have you jotted the same thought "a million times"? What sort of weirdo does that?

How come you are so ignorant with the better techniques in learning knowledge?

• Repetition is a key factor in memory and memorization. When we repeat something, we are more likely to remember it later. This is because repetition helps to embed the information in our long-term memory. Additionally, repetition can help us better recall information when we need it.
  https://irisreading.com/how-does-repeti ... orization/

The above process of repetition is very common recommendation.

Is that why you have to lie about reading things, because you are too busy repeating a millin times that Pete's " 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion". Is there some risk that you cannot learn this information anyother way?

I wrote this earlier,

• As I had stated my participation in this forum is purely for my very own selfish interests.
  It is like an electronic note book for me to jot down my thoughts.
  If there is anything positive from posters that is secondary, other than that I don't give a damn with the reactions of posters here [given I am familiar with their psychological states of most].
  Despite the negatives, my "Ethics and Morality Folder" to date has grown to "1,738 Files in 105 Folders" since I started to address that PH's >600-pages-thread, so that is productive for me for me to continue.

As I had stated, anything from posters are secondary but sometimes very catalytic.
Albeit secondary, "volleying" of contrasting opposite views [" 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion"] with Pete had been and is still positive with the above results, i.e. my Ethics and Morality Folder" to date has organically grown to "1,738 Files in 105 Folders".

If PH were to agree with my views, there would be no more "volleying" and thus less productive in new ideas and frontiers for me to jot down.
I am hoping PH will continue to be dogmatically opposing my views [likely since old dogs cannot learn new tricks] and so my continual repetitions of " 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion" and other necessary statements.

[FlashDangerpants]

my Ethics and Morality Folder" to date has organically grown to "1,738 Files in 105 Folders".

You don't read most of the files, and you don't comprehend well the things you do read. Why do you obsessively sort stuff into so many folders?

That's not an idle question by the way. For some reason you put all your research efforts into sorting files into folders rather than reading books. For some obviously related reason, you obsessively categorise fields of inquiry into a pointless hiearchy based on similarity to science. These are objectives that serve no possible purpose.

[Veritas Aequitas]

my Ethics and Morality Folder" to date has organically grown to "1,738 Files in 105 Folders".

You don't read most of the files, and you don't comprehend well the things you do read. Why do you obsessively sort stuff into so many folders?

That's not an idle question by the way. For some reason you put all your research efforts into sorting files into folders rather than reading books. For some obviously related reason, you obsessively categorise fields of inquiry into a pointless hiearchy based on similarity to science. These are objectives that serve no possible purpose.

Obviously it is impossible to read all the books and articles fully and to fully grasp all the details.
For most of the books and articles, I only read the Contents, preface, introduction and conclusions, scan their bibliography or Reviews to ensure they are relevant to my projects, before I saved them to the relevant folder and subfolder for future reference.

Even for books and articles I have read more than one or two times there is a limitation to how much I can remember them relative to the time when I read them.

But where the books are very relevant, then I will spent as much time and read the books over and over again, chapters by chapters, para by para, individual statements and every critical terms.
That was what I did for Kant's CPR & related texts, the Quran and a few others [e.g. the Harvard-x and MIT-x courses where I have to take exams].

When I sensed that people like Atla and Peter [who claimed they have read Kant's CPR] do not understand the "Phenomena vs Noumena" concept fully, I present the relevant Chapter from Kant for their reading and serious discussion. They just ignored it and continued with the wrong understanding.

Kant: Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987

If you think I have not understood any book you refer to, e.g. Blackburn's, there is no need to make accusations, rather we can trash out the issue. The limitation is that I have only read Blackburn's books on the mentioned chapters once and in some areas twice. I did not claim to be an expert on his book.

[FlashDangerpants]

my Ethics and Morality Folder" to date has organically grown to "1,738 Files in 105 Folders".

You don't read most of the files, and you don't comprehend well the things you do read. Why do you obsessively sort stuff into so many folders?

That's not an idle question by the way. For some reason you put all your research efforts into sorting files into folders rather than reading books. For some obviously related reason, you obsessively categorise fields of inquiry into a pointless hiearchy based on similarity to science. These are objectives that serve no possible purpose.

Obviously it is impossible to read all the books and articles fully and to fully grasp all the details.
For most of the books and articles, I only read the Contents, preface, introduction and conclusions, scan their bibliography or Reviews to ensure they are relevant to my projects, before I saved them to the relevant folder and subfolder for future reference.

Even for books and articles I have read more than one or two times there is a limitation to how much I can remember them relative to the time when I read them.

But where the books are very relevant, then I will spent as much time and read the books over and over again, chapters by chapters, para by para, individual statements and every critical terms.
That was what I did for Kant's CPR & related texts, the Quran and a few others [e.g. the Harvard-x and MIT-x courses where I have to take exams].

When I sensed that people like Atla and Peter [who claimed they have read Kant's CPR] do not understand the "Phenomena vs Noumena" concept fully, I present the relevant Chapter from Kant for their reading and serious discussion. They just ignored it and continued with the wrong understanding.

Kant: Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987

If you think I have not understood any book you refer to, e.g. Blackburn's, there is no need to make accusations, rather we can trash out the issue. The limitation is that I have only read Blackburn's books on the mentioned chapters once and in some areas twice. I did not claim to be an expert on his book.

Do you remember that time you told us that a paper you read argued that Pete and Sculptor and I have cognifit deficits that explain why we don't believe in moral fact? And without even needing to read it I told you that such an argument would be preposterous and no professional philosopher would write it?

You wrote this...

The moral facts deniers [e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse.

And you wrote this...

Btw, I have read that related Essay at least 20 times!

And needless to say, all 20 times or more, you did misread it, it didn't make the argument you presented nor anything close to it. And here I am also forced to wonder if you read my post that were responding to. Because I think it is clear there that I am raising the issue of whether your compulsive behaviours are rational. Something is going wrong with the way you read stuff, and 10 or 20 do-overs doesn't seem to help. This underreading followed by overreading mixed with continually faulty comporehension either way describes compulsive behaviour that is fundamentally irrational.

Boasting about how many times you've read something is no substitute for being able to display a mastery of the subject matter than one reasonably careful reading should provide. With the Blackburn thing, you told me he is less of a Kant scholar than you, but you cannot say anything he wrote that is wrong, you should be able to do that, you shouldn't need to read the chapter 10 times to know what mistake it was that you say you spotted the first time. A generic "most philosophers think Kant was ll about the imperatives" isn't going to fix this problem. Or just admit you lied about reading it if that is the case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't read most of the files, and you don't comprehend well the things you do read. Why do you obsessively sort stuff into so many folders?

That's not an idle question by the way. For some reason you put all your research efforts into sorting files into folders rather than reading books. For some obviously related reason, you obsessively categorise fields of inquiry into a pointless hiearchy based on similarity to science. These are objectives that serve no possible purpose.

Obviously it is impossible to read all the books and articles fully and to fully grasp all the details.
For most of the books and articles, I only read the Contents, preface, introduction and conclusions, scan their bibliography or Reviews to ensure they are relevant to my projects, before I saved them to the relevant folder and subfolder for future reference.

Even for books and articles I have read more than one or two times there is a limitation to how much I can remember them relative to the time when I read them.

But where the books are very relevant, then I will spent as much time and read the books over and over again, chapters by chapters, para by para, individual statements and every critical terms.
That was what I did for Kant's CPR & related texts, the Quran and a few others [e.g. the Harvard-x and MIT-x courses where I have to take exams].

When I sensed that people like Atla and Peter [who claimed they have read Kant's CPR] do not understand the "Phenomena vs Noumena" concept fully, I present the relevant Chapter from Kant for their reading and serious discussion. They just ignored it and continued with the wrong understanding.

Kant: Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987

If you think I have not understood any book you refer to, e.g. Blackburn's, there is no need to make accusations, rather we can trash out the issue. The limitation is that I have only read Blackburn's books on the mentioned chapters once and in some areas twice. I did not claim to be an expert on his book.

Do you remember that time you told us that a paper you read argued that Pete and Sculptor and I have cognifit deficits that explain why we don't believe in moral fact? And without even needing to read it I told you that such an argument would be preposterous and no professional philosopher would write it?

You wrote this...

The moral facts deniers [e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse.

And you wrote this...

Btw, I have read that related Essay at least 20 times!

And needless to say, all 20 times or more, you did misread it, it didn't make the argument you presented nor anything close to it. And here I am also forced to wonder if you read my post that were responding to. Because I think it is clear there that I am raising the issue of whether your compulsive behaviours are rational. Something is going wrong with the way you read stuff, and 10 or 20 do-overs doesn't seem to help. This underreading followed by overreading mixed with continually faulty comporehension either way describes compulsive behaviour that is fundamentally irrational.

Boasting about how many times you've read something is no substitute for being able to display a mastery of the subject matter than one reasonably careful reading should provide. With the Blackburn thing, you told me he is less of a Kant scholar than you, but you cannot say anything he wrote that is wrong, you should be able to do that, you shouldn't need to read the chapter 10 times to know what mistake it was that you say you spotted the first time. A generic "most philosophers think Kant was ll about the imperatives" isn't going to fix this problem. Or just admit you lied about reading it if that is the case.

Re moral fact deniers.
At that time, my understanding was you, Pete and Sculptor denied the existence of moral facts which I take to be critical for morality-proper.
On that basis, the moral fact deniers has moral cognitive deficit.

I believe it was only later that PH insisted he believed in morality, i.e. in the sense of moral relativism but but not with objective moral facts.

I believe you were too hasty in judging but if we were to trash it out in an amicable manner you would have understood what I meant.

Re Blackburn not fully understanding Kant's Ethics, I have already given an example.
I don't intend to waste time on this issue, but if you insist, I will find time to get back to it some time.

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously it is impossible to read all the books and articles fully and to fully grasp all the details.
For most of the books and articles, I only read the Contents, preface, introduction and conclusions, scan their bibliography or Reviews to ensure they are relevant to my projects, before I saved them to the relevant folder and subfolder for future reference.

Even for books and articles I have read more than one or two times there is a limitation to how much I can remember them relative to the time when I read them.

But where the books are very relevant, then I will spent as much time and read the books over and over again, chapters by chapters, para by para, individual statements and every critical terms.
That was what I did for Kant's CPR & related texts, the Quran and a few others [e.g. the Harvard-x and MIT-x courses where I have to take exams].

When I sensed that people like Atla and Peter [who claimed they have read Kant's CPR] do not understand the "Phenomena vs Noumena" concept fully, I present the relevant Chapter from Kant for their reading and serious discussion. They just ignored it and continued with the wrong understanding.

Kant: Chapter on Phenomena vs Noumena [B294-B315]
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987

If you think I have not understood any book you refer to, e.g. Blackburn's, there is no need to make accusations, rather we can trash out the issue. The limitation is that I have only read Blackburn's books on the mentioned chapters once and in some areas twice. I did not claim to be an expert on his book.

Do you remember that time you told us that a paper you read argued that Pete and Sculptor and I have cognifit deficits that explain why we don't believe in moral fact? And without even needing to read it I told you that such an argument would be preposterous and no professional philosopher would write it?

You wrote this...

The moral facts deniers [e.g. Sculptor, Peter Holmes, Flasher..] are the minority who has a cognitive deficit in moral sense and impulse.

And you wrote this...

Btw, I have read that related Essay at least 20 times!

And needless to say, all 20 times or more, you did misread it, it didn't make the argument you presented nor anything close to it. And here I am also forced to wonder if you read my post that were responding to. Because I think it is clear there that I am raising the issue of whether your compulsive behaviours are rational. Something is going wrong with the way you read stuff, and 10 or 20 do-overs doesn't seem to help. This underreading followed by overreading mixed with continually faulty comporehension either way describes compulsive behaviour that is fundamentally irrational.

Boasting about how many times you've read something is no substitute for being able to display a mastery of the subject matter than one reasonably careful reading should provide. With the Blackburn thing, you told me he is less of a Kant scholar than you, but you cannot say anything he wrote that is wrong, you should be able to do that, you shouldn't need to read the chapter 10 times to know what mistake it was that you say you spotted the first time. A generic "most philosophers think Kant was ll about the imperatives" isn't going to fix this problem. Or just admit you lied about reading it if that is the case.

Re moral fact deniers.
At that time, my understanding was you, Pete and Sculptor denied the existence of moral facts which I take to be critical for morality-proper.
On that basis, the moral fact deniers has moral cognitive deficit.

I believe it was only later that PH insisted he believed in morality, i.e. in the sense of moral relativism but but not with objective moral facts.

I believe you were too hasty in judging but if we were to trash it out in an amicable manner you would have understood what I meant.

Re Blackburn not fully understanding Kant's Ethics, I have already given an example.
I don't intend to waste time on this issue, but if you insist, I will find time to get back to it some time.

The thread I reference is here, viewtopic.php?t=29659. The author of the paper does not make any argument that moral antirealism is evidence of mental inferiority and only as complete idiot would imagine they read such a thing. Retract, and learn from the mistake. No idiotic misunderstanding of Pete's moral beliefs at the time can explain how you made that fuck up.

If you cannot give me details of a thing that Blackburn wrote that was mistaken, you are lying and you have been lying all along. You keep lying about reading stuff, you can only get away with that when you are arguing with other people who never read. That is why it doesn't work on me. Eventually your objective is to get your thing published and become an important philosopher, no? How do you think you will be able to get away with these silly lies when the other guy is paid to read all day every day?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The thread I reference is here, viewtopic.php?t=29659. The author of the paper does not make any argument that moral antirealism is evidence of mental inferiority and only as complete idiot would imagine they read such a thing. Retract, and learn from the mistake. No idiotic misunderstanding of Pete's moral beliefs at the time can explain how you made that fuck up.

If you cannot give me details of a thing that Blackburn wrote that was mistaken, you are lying and you have been lying all along. You keep lying about reading stuff, you can only get away with that when you are arguing with other people who never read. That is why it doesn't work on me. Eventually your objective is to get your thing published and become an important philosopher, no? How do you think you will be able to get away with these silly lies when the other guy is paid to read all day every day?

I need to do some editing to the OP [done].

I was referring to the following Chapter in that book which I had read >20 times [not to the whole book];

• HOW TO BE A MORAL REALIST
  Richard N. Boyd -1982
  Chapter 9 in
  Essays on Moral Realism (Cornell Paperbacks) 1st Edition
  by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (Editor),

Here are the related points from that Chapter;

What I have in mind is the very strong intuition which many philosophers share that the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent would not only be psychologically atypical [not representative of a type, group, or class.] but would have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.

The anti-realist diagnoses this deficit as a failure to recognize a definitional or otherwise necessary connection between Moral goodness and reasons for action.

I think that there is a deep insight in the view that people for whom questions of Moral goodness are irrelevant to how they would choose to act - suffer a cognitive deficit.

I propose that the deficit is not—as the anti-realist would have it—a failure to recognize a necessary connection between moral judgments and reasons for action.
Instead, I suggest, if we adopt a naturalistic conception of moral knowledge we can diagnose in such people a deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.

What I have in mind is the application of a causal theory of moral knowledge to the examination of a feature of moral reasoning which has been well understood in the empiricist tradition since Hume, that is, the role of sympathy [empathy] in moral understanding.

...
We are now in a position to see why the morally unconcerned person, the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, probably suffers a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.
Such a person would have to be deficient in sympathy [empathy], because the motivational role of sympathy [empathy] is precisely to make moral facts motivationally relevant.
In consequence, she or he would be deficient with respect to a cognitive capacity (sympathy [empathy]) which is ordinarily important for the correct assessment of moral facts.
The motivational deficiency would, as a matter of contingent fact about human psychology, be a cognitive deficiency as well.

As Boyd had stated above, the deficiency in moral reasoning is due to a a perceptual deficit.

As such, you, Pete and Sculptor has low moral sense but I did not equate you all as psychopaths.

[FlashDangerpants]

The thread I reference is here, viewtopic.php?t=29659. The author of the paper does not make any argument that moral antirealism is evidence of mental inferiority and only as complete idiot would imagine they read such a thing. Retract, and learn from the mistake. No idiotic misunderstanding of Pete's moral beliefs at the time can explain how you made that fuck up.

If you cannot give me details of a thing that Blackburn wrote that was mistaken, you are lying and you have been lying all along. You keep lying about reading stuff, you can only get away with that when you are arguing with other people who never read. That is why it doesn't work on me. Eventually your objective is to get your thing published and become an important philosopher, no? How do you think you will be able to get away with these silly lies when the other guy is paid to read all day every day?

I need to do some editing to the OP [done].

I was referring to the following Chapter in that book which I had read >20 times [not to the whole book];

This is further evidence of your inability to conprehend words written by other people. One issue is that you tell us you've read something an insane number of times and you think that this insanity is a good thing. The other is that no matter how many times you read something, you consistently fuck it up.....

• HOW TO BE A MORAL REALIST
  Richard N. Boyd -1982
  Chapter 9 in
  Essays on Moral Realism (Cornell Paperbacks) 1st Edition
  by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (Editor),

Here are the related points from that Chapter;

What I have in mind is the very strong intuition which many philosophers share that the person for whom moral judgments are motivationally indifferent would not only be psychologically atypical [not representative of a type, group, or class.] but would have some sort of cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning as well.

The anti-realist diagnoses this deficit as a failure to recognize a definitional or otherwise necessary connection between Moral goodness and reasons for action.

I think that there is a deep insight in the view that people for whom questions of Moral goodness are irrelevant to how they would choose to act - suffer a cognitive deficit.

I propose that the deficit is not—as the anti-realist would have it—a failure to recognize a necessary connection between moral judgments and reasons for action.
Instead, I suggest, if we adopt a naturalistic conception of moral knowledge we can diagnose in such people a deficit in the capacity to make moral judgments somewhat akin to a perceptual deficit.

What I have in mind is the application of a causal theory of moral knowledge to the examination of a feature of moral reasoning which has been well understood in the empiricist tradition since Hume, that is, the role of sympathy [empathy] in moral understanding.

...
We are now in a position to see why the morally unconcerned person, the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, probably suffers a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.
Such a person would have to be deficient in sympathy [empathy], because the motivational role of sympathy [empathy] is precisely to make moral facts motivationally relevant.
In consequence, she or he would be deficient with respect to a cognitive capacity (sympathy [empathy]) which is ordinarily important for the correct assessment of moral facts.
The motivational deficiency would, as a matter of contingent fact about human psychology, be a cognitive deficiency as well.

As Boyd had stated above, the deficiency in moral reasoning is due to a a perceptual deficit.

As such, you, Pete and Sculptor has low moral sense but I did not equate you all as psychopaths.

And that's the second point. Boyd's essay doesn't say ANTHING about contrarian moral philosophers at all. See that other post I did recently about BDM, that covers why philosophers of ethics discuss moral motivation and that is the stuff that Boyd is referencing in that page you misunderstood.

Boyd is absolutly not tellng you anything about me, Sculptor or Pete though. Your inability to grasp this still after 3 years is concerning.

[Sculptor]

Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages.
There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

I have done the ratings on the degree of objectivity [FSK-ed] for the following

1. Scientific [the Standard] = 90.0
2. Theological = 0.00
3. History =45.50
4. My morality-proper FSKs =74.75

If the scientific FSK is the most reliable and objective and taken as the Standard, then the relative degrees of objectivity to the standard are as follows;

• 1. Scientific [the Standard] = 100%
  2. My morality-proper FSKs =83.05% -[{74.75/90}*100]
  3. History =50.55%
  4. Theological = 0.00%

The principle is, as long as it qualifies as a FSK, there is FSK-ed objectivity.

From the above, with the scientific FSK as the standard at 100%, the theological FSK's degrees of credibility and objectivity is 0%.

My proposed morality-proper FSK is rated at 83.05 relative to the standard because, whilst NOT dealing with direct empirical evidence, its major input is are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The figures below are subject to deliberation and will change but I do not expect the changes to vary significantly.

___________________________________
The Detail Ratings are as follows;

Scientific FSK
Criteria............................W.......Score ....Point
Empirical Evidence:..............0.85....90.......76.50
Predictive Power:.................0.04...90.........3.60
Testability and Falsifiability:....0.04...90........3.60
Reproducibility:...................0.05...90........4.50
Consistency w Existing
Knowledge:........................0.01...90.........0.90
Logical Coherence:...............0.01...90.........0.90
Total: ..............................1.00.............90.00

Because it is tedious I have not align the below like the above.
Theology FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 0 0.00
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 0 0.00
Total 1.00 0.00


History FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 50 42.50
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 50 2.50
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 50 0.50
Total 1.00 45.50


Morality Proper FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 85 72.25
Predictive Power: 0.04 10 0.40
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 90 0.90
Logical Coherence: 0.01 90 0.90
Total 1.00 74.45
______________________

The above are not carved in stones.

Discuss?? Views??

ps. can anyone show how can I post tables in this forum?

Insane babble

[LuckyR]

Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages.
There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

I have done the ratings on the degree of objectivity [FSK-ed] for the following

1. Scientific [the Standard] = 90.0
2. Theological = 0.00
3. History =45.50
4. My morality-proper FSKs =74.75

If the scientific FSK is the most reliable and objective and taken as the Standard, then the relative degrees of objectivity to the standard are as follows;

• 1. Scientific [the Standard] = 100%
  2. My morality-proper FSKs =83.05% -[{74.75/90}*100]
  3. History =50.55%
  4. Theological = 0.00%

The principle is, as long as it qualifies as a FSK, there is FSK-ed objectivity.

From the above, with the scientific FSK as the standard at 100%, the theological FSK's degrees of credibility and objectivity is 0%.

My proposed morality-proper FSK is rated at 83.05 relative to the standard because, whilst NOT dealing with direct empirical evidence, its major input is are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The figures below are subject to deliberation and will change but I do not expect the changes to vary significantly.

___________________________________
The Detail Ratings are as follows;

Scientific FSK
Criteria............................W.......Score ....Point
Empirical Evidence:..............0.85....90.......76.50
Predictive Power:.................0.04...90.........3.60
Testability and Falsifiability:....0.04...90........3.60
Reproducibility:...................0.05...90........4.50
Consistency w Existing
Knowledge:........................0.01...90.........0.90
Logical Coherence:...............0.01...90.........0.90
Total: ..............................1.00.............90.00

Because it is tedious I have not align the below like the above.
Theology FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 0 0.00
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 0 0.00
Total 1.00 0.00


History FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 50 42.50
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 50 2.50
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 50 0.50
Total 1.00 45.50


Morality Proper FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 85 72.25
Predictive Power: 0.04 10 0.40
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 90 0.90
Logical Coherence: 0.01 90 0.90
Total 1.00 74.45
______________________

The above are not carved in stones.

Discuss?? Views??

ps. can anyone show how can I post tables in this forum?

Insane babble

Well you've got to acknowledge the bravado in assigning 3 significant digits to an essentially subjective opinion. I don't necessarily profoundly disagree with the opinion, but the criteria for quantifying the situation numerically is arbitrary.

[Sculptor]

Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages.
There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

I have done the ratings on the degree of objectivity [FSK-ed] for the following


If the scientific FSK is the most reliable and objective and taken as the Standard, then the relative degrees of objectivity to the standard are as follows;

• 1. Scientific [the Standard] = 100%
  2. My morality-proper FSKs =83.05% -[{74.75/90}*100]
  3. History =50.55%
  4. Theological = 0.00%

The principle is, as long as it qualifies as a FSK, there is FSK-ed objectivity.

From the above, with the scientific FSK as the standard at 100%, the theological FSK's degrees of credibility and objectivity is 0%.

My proposed morality-proper FSK is rated at 83.05 relative to the standard because, whilst NOT dealing with direct empirical evidence, its major input is are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The figures below are subject to deliberation and will change but I do not expect the changes to vary significantly.

___________________________________
The Detail Ratings are as follows;

Scientific FSK
Criteria............................W.......Score ....Point
Empirical Evidence:..............0.85....90.......76.50
Predictive Power:.................0.04...90.........3.60
Testability and Falsifiability:....0.04...90........3.60
Reproducibility:...................0.05...90........4.50
Consistency w Existing
Knowledge:........................0.01...90.........0.90
Logical Coherence:...............0.01...90.........0.90
Total: ..............................1.00.............90.00

Because it is tedious I have not align the below like the above.
Theology FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 0 0.00
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 0 0.00
Total 1.00 0.00


History FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 50 42.50
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 50 2.50
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 50 0.50
Total 1.00 45.50


Morality Proper FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 85 72.25
Predictive Power: 0.04 10 0.40
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 90 0.90
Logical Coherence: 0.01 90 0.90
Total 1.00 74.45
______________________

The above are not carved in stones.

Discuss?? Views??

ps. can anyone show how can I post tables in this forum?

Insane babble

Well you've got to acknowledge the bravado in assigning 3 significant digits to an essentially subjective opinion. I don't necessarily profoundly disagree with the opinion, but the criteria for quantifying the situation numerically is arbitrary.

You are too kind.
Yes they are wholly subjective. Based on nothing more than his naive westerncentric opinion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well you've got to acknowledge the bravado in assigning 3 significant digits to an essentially subjective opinion. I don't necessarily profoundly disagree with the opinion, but the criteria for quantifying the situation numerically is arbitrary.

It is not arbitrary.
If you were to research* on why many rate science [at its best re Natural Sciences] as very credible, reliable and objective, the above are the main criteria that carry the greater weightages.
This is to the extent that even theists, like the Catholic Church, Dalai Lama and theists [Newton, Mendel, etc.] who have done or are doing science would have agreed to.
There many theists who start their argument's P1 re God exists, with reliance upon scientific facts.

* I have double-checked with the internet-omniscient-God, ChatGpt [with reservations] who agreed to the criteria used are the main ones.

What other critical criteria do you think I have missed out.

The only reservation I have with the above are the weightages I have given in the examples which I had stated are tentative and provisional.

I am confident any rational and critical thinker, based on the above exercise, will accept the contrasting objectivity rating of Science [Standard at 100%] vs Theology-FSK at 0.00000001% as qualified to the make known transparent conditions.
Do you have any reason to reject this result?

[Atla]

Theology-FSK at 0.00000001%

Looks like you already work with a 1 in 10 billion accuracy, we gnats find that pretty impressive