What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

You claim to have set out 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept' in assessing and comparing models of reality.

I still feel it's worth noting that there is no rational person who accepts any of it. The only person who doesn't think it's entirely stupid is the one who put the whole Quran into an Excel spereadsheet and doens't understand why that's not rational either.

[Peter Holmes]

You claim to have set out 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept' in assessing and comparing models of reality.

I still feel it's worth noting that there is no rational person who accepts any of it. The only person who doesn't think it's entirely stupid is the one who put the whole Quran into an Excel spereadsheet and doens't understand why that's not rational either.

Agreed. This is like filling your sand circle with water. Try to block a leak in one place, and it springs somewhere else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Failed again. You're not actually addressing my argument and trying to refute it.

You claim to have set out 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept' in assessing and comparing models of reality. But you refuse to acknowledge that, given your FSRC theory, such criteria can exist only within a model of reality, so the assessment and comparison is worthless.

It amounts to using a model to assess models for their relative objectivity. There's no way out here. How can we assess the objectivity of those generally accepted criteria? The obvious answer - that we can do it by assessing and comparing how well models describe reality - is one your silly theory blocks for you.

I have already addressed the points you raised, i.e.

3 So your FSRC theory can't explain why the natural sciences are the 'gold standard' for providing knowledge of reality. Your theory undermines or contradicts that claim.

I have explained the gold standard is based on criteria accepted by rational basis.
Note the AI's view that we can make this assessment as exception and this is dealt at a meta-level.

You missed this thread?? on why the circularity from classical logic is not significant in this case?
viewtopic.php?p=702379#p702379

You need to read the above thread on how the circularity from traditional logic is avoided by dealing it at a meta-level.

It amounts to using a model to assess models for their relative objectivity. There's no way out here. How can we assess the objectivity of those generally accepted criteria?

Assessing the relative credibility and objectivity is a very common exercise within humanity.
There is a methodology, processes and a list of generally accepted criteria.
The generally accepted criteria are honed based on experience and consensus within rational agents iteratively and dialectically.
There is no need to use any models to assess generally accepted criteria formally.

I provided this link but you did not bother to read;
Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

• Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
  A Constitution - explicit or implied.
  Empirical evidence – direct/ secondary; weightage 0.75/1.00
  Scientific method
  Qualify assumptions & limitations
  Verifiability
  Ethical neutrality
  Systematic exploration
  Testability
  Falsifiability
  Reliability
  Precision
  Repeatability - reliability
  Accuracy - validity
  Abstractness
  Predictability/ predictive power
  Rely on scientific facts
  Peer review
  Rationality and critical thinking
  Internal consistency:
  Explanatory power
  Predictiveness / predictive power
  Paradigm shifts
  Tentativeness, provisional
  Theory construction and
  Hypothesis testing
  Intolerant of contradictory evidence
  Natural- scientific models, laws, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomena
  Natural or Metaphysical
  Systematic evidence approach
  Rigorous
  Purposive – clear goal in mind
  Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
  Operational definitions
  Uncertainty – certainty
  Logical arguments

See: Methodology of how the above is used
viewtopic.php?t=41096

You have not addressed these points;

This is wilful misrepresentation. To repeat, I agree that the natural sciences provide the most credible, etc, knowledge of reality.

How do you know objectively, natural science is the most credible if you don't have a methodology to do it?
You, your parents, children, kin said so?
What is your justification for the above?

1 The only way we can assess and compare the credibility/reliability/accuracy/objectivity of models of reality is to see how well they describe or 'model' reality. For example, that's how we know that astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack.

How do you know astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack if you don't have a methodology to do it?
To assess and compare the credibility/reliability/accuracy/objectivity of models of reality, you need some sort of methodology, processes and a list of generally accepted criteria.
That is why I provide the criteria for the above.
You are just merely making statements but provide not means of justification.

[FlashDangerpants]

You claim to have set out 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept' in assessing and comparing models of reality.

I still feel it's worth noting that there is no rational person who accepts any of it. The only person who doesn't think it's entirely stupid is the one who put the whole Quran into an Excel spereadsheet and doens't understand why that's not rational either.

Agreed. This is like filling your sand circle with water. Try to block a leak in one place, and it springs somewhere else.

And now he hands ove a list (surprise... a list!) of "Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK" which apart from being itslef the product of such a KFC also has the audacity to list 'reliability' not once but twice as criteria in that research. The circles seem to be the point.

[Peter Holmes]

...

Failed again. You're not actually addressing my argument and trying to refute it.

You claim to have set out 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept' in assessing and comparing models of reality. But you refuse to acknowledge that, given your FSRC theory, such criteria can exist only within a model of reality, so the assessment and comparison is worthless.

It amounts to using a model to assess models for their relative objectivity. There's no way out here. How can we assess the objectivity of those generally accepted criteria? The obvious answer - that we can do it by assessing and comparing how well models describe reality - is one your silly theory blocks for you.

I have already addressed the points you raised, i.e.

No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?

This is a waste of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Failed again. You're not actually addressing my argument and trying to refute it.

You claim to have set out 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept' in assessing and comparing models of reality. But you refuse to acknowledge that, given your FSRC theory, such criteria can exist only within a model of reality, so the assessment and comparison is worthless.

It amounts to using a model to assess models for their relative objectivity. There's no way out here. How can we assess the objectivity of those generally accepted criteria? The obvious answer - that we can do it by assessing and comparing how well models describe reality - is one your silly theory blocks for you.

I have already addressed the points you raised, i.e.

No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?

This is a waste of time.

Nah, you are just ignorant and banking on traditional logic without understanding its limitations. You think traditional logic is God?

Explain to me why what AI proposed above is not reasonable nor feasible
Do you understand how standards are set without reference to any prior standards?
Long ago, what is the standard 'foot' was simply referenced from someone's foot without any justification why that foot is chosen as the standard.
It is the same for all existing standards.

So it is the same of the use of a set of rational criteria that is generally accepted as a basis to assess the credibility and objective of each FSRC, model, paradigm and the like.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

This is a waste of time.

It is at your discretion.
It is like you are complaining quantum physics is a waste of time because you cannot understand it.

You are just like theists who refuse to understand [not agree with] the views of non-theists who counter them.

It is a great psychological threat and very painful [need to go through a cold turkey] for you to even try to understand [not necessary agree with] my antirealist views. I am not expecting and hopefully you remain the same.

[Peter Holmes]

I have already addressed the points you raised, i.e.

No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?

This is a waste of time.

Nah, you are just ignorant and banking on traditional logic without understanding its limitations. You think traditional logic is God?

Explain to me why what AI proposed above is not reasonable nor feasible
Do you understand how standards are set without reference to any prior standards?
Long ago, what is the standard 'foot' was simply referenced from someone's foot without any justification why that foot is chosen as the standard.
It is the same for all existing standards.

So it is the same of the use of a set of rational criteria that is generally accepted as a basis to assess the credibility and objective of each FSRC, model, paradigm and the like.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

This is a waste of time.

It is at your discretion.
It is like you are complaining quantum physics is a waste of time because you cannot understand it.

You are just like theists who refuse to understand [not agree with] the views of non-theists who counter them.

It is a great psychological threat and very painful [need to go through a cold turkey] for you to even try to understand [not necessary agree with] my antirealist views. I am not expecting and hopefully you remain the same.

No, the reason why this is a waste of time is that you either don't understand, or can't afford to acknowledge, the fundamental problem with your theory.

You say that there's no reality outside a model of reality - an 'FSRC'. But then you say we can assess and compare the objectivity of models by applying 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Then you list those criteria and refer to a methodology. And the criteria and methodology are all realist, in that they assume there is a reality against which we can assess and compare our models. And you say the natural sciences come out tops as 'the gold standard'.

And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Now, I think you just can't handle this explanation. I think you're intellectually unable to do so. So you lash out with slurs against those of us who try to explain where you go wrong. And it's a waste of time.

[FlashDangerpants]

And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Recently VA has been taking on the quite impossible task of converting On Certainty into a subset of his KFC-buckets. If he actually read page 1 of the Tractatus though...

1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of [KFC-Buckets], not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the [KFC-Buckets], and by their being all the [KFC-Buckets].
1.12 For the totality of [KFC-Buckets] determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The [KFC-Buckets] in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into [KFC-Buckets].
1.21 Each item can be the case [in accord with KFC-Buckets] or not the case [in accord with KFC-Buckets] while everything else remains the same.

... that sort of fits what he writes much more readily.

[Peter Holmes]

And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Recently VA has been taking on the quite impossible task of converting On Certainty into a subset of his KFC-buckets. If he actually read page 1 of the Tractatus though...

1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of [KFC-Buckets], not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the [KFC-Buckets], and by their being all the [KFC-Buckets].
1.12 For the totality of [KFC-Buckets] determines what is the case, and also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The [KFC-Buckets] in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into [KFC-Buckets].
1.21 Each item can be the case [in accord with KFC-Buckets] or not the case [in accord with KFC-Buckets] while everything else remains the same.

... that sort of fits what he writes much more readily.

Nice one. Maintaining the dazzling hieratic grandeur of the original.

[promethean75]

FYI, here's the current FSK of KFC.

The recipe found by Joe Ledington reads as follows:

11 Spices – Mix with 2 cups white flour

2⁄3 t salt
1⁄2 t thyme
1⁄2 t basil
1⁄3 t oregano
1 t celery salt
1 t black pepper
1 t dry mustard
4 t paprika
2 t garlic salt
1 t ground ginger
3 t white pepper

"While Ledington expressed uncertainty that the recipe was the Original Recipe, he had a hand in mixing the Original Recipe for Colonel Sanders when he was a young boy, and recalled that white pepper was a principal ingredient."

"In August 2016, the Chicago Tribune reported that Joe Ledington of Kentucky, a nephew by marriage of Colonel Sanders, had claimed to have found a copy of the original KFC fried chicken recipe FSK on a handwritten piece of paper in an envelope in a scrapbook FFS."

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?

This is a waste of time.

Nah, you are just ignorant and banking on traditional logic without understanding its limitations. You think traditional logic is God?

Explain to me why what AI proposed above is not reasonable nor feasible
Do you understand how standards are set without reference to any prior standards?
Long ago, what is the standard 'foot' was simply referenced from someone's foot without any justification why that foot is chosen as the standard.
It is the same for all existing standards.

So it is the same of the use of a set of rational criteria that is generally accepted as a basis to assess the credibility and objective of each FSRC, model, paradigm and the like.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

This is a waste of time.

It is at your discretion.
It is like you are complaining quantum physics is a waste of time because you cannot understand it.

You are just like theists who refuse to understand [not agree with] the views of non-theists who counter them.

It is a great psychological threat and very painful [need to go through a cold turkey] for you to even try to understand [not necessary agree with] my antirealist views. I am not expecting and hopefully you remain the same.

No, the reason why this is a waste of time is that you either don't understand, or can't afford to acknowledge, the fundamental problem with your theory.

It is up to you to argued my theory is fundamentally wrong.
But how could you when the basis of your argument against mine is grounded on an illusion?
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
So far you have not provided any convincing counter to my point.
Do you understand [not agree with] my point?

You say that there's no reality outside a model of reality - an 'FSRC'. But then you say we can assess and compare the objectivity of models by applying 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

As an anti-realist I am opposing your claim that there is a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

The principle is a relative comparison can be done with anything [objectivity, any variable] as long as a fixed standard [gold or otherwise] is set.
You deny this?
If I use your height as the standard of a human height, then the other >8 billion person's height can be compared to your height as the standard as a relative %.
Or if an average height of humans at present is determined that can be used as a standard; but note will anyone question how the average height is obtained? no .. it is simply accepted and assumed a rational methodology has been applied.

Note the controversial IQ which was accepted and applied by many earlier but lately the rational basis of its criteria has been questioned. I believe IQ is still use in some limited ways with awareness of its limitations.

But so far, there is nothing fishy in using a set of rational criteria to assess the credibility and objective of FSRCs and using the highest rated as the standard, i.e. which as determined is the scientific FSRC [implicitly or explicitly]. I have merely it more explicit.

Then you list those criteria and refer to a methodology. And the criteria and methodology are all realist, in that they assume there is a reality against which we can assess and compare our models. And you say the natural sciences come out tops as 'the gold standard'.

This is absolutely wrong to insist all those criteria are realists.
All those criteria are human-based they cannot be in realist term, i.e. independent of humans.
As I had stated, your insistence that there is an independent reality against which we can assess and compare is grounded on an illusion.
In the case you are mirroring [as condemned by Rorty] a model against an independent external reality.

And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Again your ideological claim of a reality outside the model is fatuous and groundless.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Now, I think you just can't handle this explanation. I think you're intellectually unable to do so. So you lash out with slurs against those of us who try to explain where you go wrong. And it's a waste of time.

I only lash out as a tit for tat, e.g. to FDP.
Those who attack me without an intellectually basis [e.g. FDP] is due their psychological desperations to soothe their existential crisis.

I prefer to discuss amicably and amenable, and is prepared to trash out the issue as long as it takes [it provide a leverage for me to learn more; btw, I hope you will not agree with me] in an intellectual and philosophical mode.
The only critique I had on you is your shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking which is intellectually related. This critique is not lashing out.

That is why I suggest it is critical you read the following;
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
to understand my fundamental [substance] principles which are similar therein,
but note, I do not agree with all the forms therein.
The related thread here;
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

It is a serious call, sacrifice some time and you will understand [not agree with] my position more clearly.
Please confirm you have read and understood [not agree with] it.

The related threads:
Relativism about Logic
Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism
Social Constructivism
Conceptual Relativism

Also give a summary of what you understand from the above.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

Also do you understand why you are so dogmatic with your narrow and shallow philosophical views?
Clue: evolutionary, history of Western Philosophy, analytic philosophy, Anglo-American ideology,

[Peter Holmes]

VA.

We fix the 'standard' human height at 6 foot. But, according to you, 'what is fact' is illusory, so to fix the standard human height at 6 foot is an illusion, as is the fact that there's such a measurement as 6 foot, as is the fact that there are humans whose height we can measure using an arbitrary standard.

Iow, your fake antirealism rests at all points on realist assumptions, but you refuse to recognise this.

Our systems of measurement depend on us. But that doesn't mean the things we measure depend on us.

Here's a way of seeing your theory.

Premise: Our measurements are human-dependent.
Conclusion: Therefore, the things we measure are human-dependent.

Non sequitur. You keep saying we haven't shown why your theory is cack. Here's yet another example.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA.

We fix the 'standard' human height at 6 foot. But, according to you, 'what is fact' is illusory, so to fix the standard human height at 6 foot is an illusion, as is the fact that there's such a measurement as 6 foot, as is the fact that there are humans whose height we can measure using an arbitrary standard.

Iow, your fake antirealism rests at all points on realist assumptions, but you refuse to recognise this.

Our systems of measurement depend on us. But that doesn't mean the things we measure depend on us.

Here's a way of seeing your theory.

Premise: Our measurements are human-dependent.
Conclusion: Therefore, the things we measure are human-dependent.

Non sequitur. You keep saying we haven't shown why your theory is cack. Here's yet another example.

Again you did not realize it is your refutation and theory that is cack and shitty.

I did not state my 'what is fact' is illusory.
I charge your 'what is fact' is illusory.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

It is your usual strawman, I did not fixed the standard human height at 6 foot.
I had used "your" real height 'H' measured and verified using the standard foot or metric system.
As such your height cannot be illusory in this empirical sense.
Surely your height is not something absolutely independent but conditioned upon the human conditions and its choice of the basic standard, the foot or the metre.
There is no absolute foot or meter that is independent of humans.

Premise: Our measurements are human-dependent.
Conclusion: Therefore, the things we measure are human-dependent.

Again another strawman that insults your intelligence.
I did not make the above argument at all and I had mentioned 'human-dependent' has no relevance to my argument.

My argument is this:
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC.

This oppose the claim of the p-realist that whatever is reality, exist, truth and facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.

All your above refutations is based on strawman[s].

I suggested you read the
Relativism article from SEP to get an idea of my views, so that you avoid the strawmaning.
This is a critical measure for philosophy sake.
I wonder why you refuse this.
Is this a case of 'theory of mind' i.e. the refusal to understand the view of the opposing party.

I have been accusing of ignoring views of others.
Actually most of the time you and others are ignoring most of the questions I posed which I had not bothered to whine.

Here is a serious suggestion I need to highlight;

I suggest again, you need to read the article on
relativism from SEP
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
this will ensure you will not strawman my views.

Btw, I will never refuse to read if you suggest any reference for me to read to understand your views, but unfortunately you do not have any reference to support your own views.
You are like the emperor with no clothes in thinking your philosophical views has substance.

So, it you who did not realize it is your refutation and theory that is cack and shitty.

[Peter Holmes]

My argument is this:
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC.

We know. But this claim is false, and has ridiculous implications.

If there is no reality outside a model (an FSRC), then there is no way to assess and compare the objectivity of models, so there is no way to know that the natural sciences are 'the gold standard', which is what you claim.

And if there is no reality outside a model, then we humans are merely features of a model - and the models we make are models made by models.

Your silly theory is one version of the philosophical antirealisms that can be traced back to Kant's silly distinction between phenomena and noumena - a distinction that he simultaneously invoked and denied, with catastrophic consequences.

Perhaps you or any other antirealist, constructivist or model-dependent realist here can answer the following questions.

If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model?

If all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?

If there is no reality outside a model, who or what makes the models?

Fact is, philosophical antirealism is fake, because it always begins with 'What we humans do is...', thus assuming the existence of an example of what it denies.

Fact is, antirealists aren't 'anti' or opposed to reality, cos that would be absurd. What they're opposed to is the delusion that any one description or kind of description can capture the essence or ultimate nature of reality - thus flirting with the delusion that there is or could be such a thing.

End the flirtation - and the whole antirealist project is pointless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My argument is this:
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC.

We know. But this claim is false, and has ridiculous implications.

If there is no reality outside a model (an FSRC), then there is no way to assess and compare the objectivity of models, so there is no way to know that the natural sciences are 'the gold standard', which is what you claim.

And if there is no reality outside a model, then we humans are merely features of a model - and the models we make are models made by models.

I have mentioned a 'million' times,
your using of 'there is a reality outside a FSRC' is grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, you don't have any valid grounds to refute my claims.

It is a strawman.
It is not accurate to state the FSRC is a model per se.
A model per se is merely a representation of something real.
The FSRC itself is something that is real, thus cannot be a model per se.
What actually emerged, realized and cognized is not based on any model per se, it is just reality. One can model it, but that is after the fact.

The claim of an FSRC is [repeat];
Whatever is reality, fact, truth, existence, knowledge [with exception] is contingent upon an embodied human based FSRC; this oppose [is against] the p-realist claim that reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Your silly theory is one version of the philosophical antirealisms that can be traced back to Kant's silly distinction between phenomena and noumena - a distinction that he simultaneously invoked and denied, with catastrophic consequences.

Don't insult your intelligence in 'sillying' Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all time] when you have not understood [not agree with] his philosophical foundation.

Perhaps you or any other antirealist, constructivist or model-dependent realist here can answer the following questions.
If to construct a model of reality is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model?
If all we can know about reality are the models we construct, then how can we construct them in the first place?
If there is no reality outside a model, who or what makes the models?

The above is a strawman as usual.
A Wittgenstein claimed, you are bewitched by language -too literal in this case.
'Constructivism' in this case is not a builder constructing a building from a model.
What constructivism [philosophical not civil engineering] meant is, whatever is reality, it cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.
Metaphorically, if reality is a 'construction', then humans has a part in that 'construction'.

Fact is, philosophical antirealism is fake, because it always begins with 'What we humans do is...', thus assuming the existence of an example of what it denies.

Fact is, antirealists aren't 'anti' or opposed to reality, cos that would be absurd. What they're opposed to is the delusion that any one description or kind of description can capture the essence or ultimate nature of reality - thus flirting with the delusion that there is or could be such a thing.

End the flirtation - and the whole antirealist project is pointless.

Strawman as usual again.

Antirealism per se is not fake.
Antirealism argued that realism [p] is fake, not realistic nor tenable.
The onus in on p-realists to prove their realism is really real and not fake, not illusory.

My personal beliefs are that of Kantian [not 100%] and others.
You can argue Kantianism is fake, but have you read Kant's CPR thoroughly to qualify to prove Kantianism is fake?