Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:00 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 9:46 am
I don't misunderstand your argument. It's just fallacious. Your FSRC theory provides no basis for assessing the credibility, reliability or objectivity of a practice and discourse that produces knowledge - and so for comparing discourses - because your first premise is that all knowledge is
within an FSRC.
And this is circular, because whatever FSRC 'produces' the knowledge that an FSRC is credible, reliable, etc - can't be self-authenticating or self-authorising. There is no 'master' FSRC above the fray of competing FSRCs - no way to show that astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack.
All you do in your many posts is say that the natural sciences are the gold standard. If you appeal to empirical evidence, your theory blocks that answer, because you say there can be no facts
outside an FSRC - so empirical evidence can only be evidence of things that exist only within a model.
You say 'what is fact' is always within a model - an FSRC - so you can't appeal to facts to justify the credibility, reliability and objectivity of a model. Have a careful think about this.
I don't see the sort of crude circularity from traditional logic is applicable to the above.
In the case of assessing the credibility and objective of each FSRC, that is based on the generally
accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept.
And here's the rub. You invoke 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept.' But you won't spell those criteria out - because to do so would demolish your antirealism.
The criteria that all rational person would accept are listed in the thread above.
As such the resultant of the assessment would be acceptable by all rational people.
Show me evidence where rational people has rejected the results of any such exercise on the excuse of circularity from traditional logic.
If you don't agree, give a list of FSRC that could be more credible and objective than the scientific FSRC at its best?
This is wilful misrepresentation. To repeat, I agree that the natural sciences provide the most credible, etc, knowledge of reality.
How?
You, your parents, children, kin said so?
What is your justification for the above?
Let's try again.
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?
That is why I provide the criteria for the above.
You are just merely making statements but provide not means of justification.
2 But your FRSC theory states that there is no such thing as reality ('what is fact') outside a model of reality. So there's nothing against which we can assess and compare our models.
As I had argued, your basis that there is an absolute reality outside the FSRC is grounded on an illusion.
As such you don't have any grounds to argue against my theory.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
You have not countered this effectively.
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 of 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
Now, until you actually address and try to refute my argument, you're wasting your own and everyone else's time.
You argument is grounded on an illusion, it is a non-starter for you to refute my argument.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
It is none of your business regarding what I am doing.
Remember I had thanked you for not agreeing with my argument and I am hoping you will never do because I am using your ignorance to expand my database on morality and ethics.
When I first started, other than a separate Kantian ethics, I had zero in my general ethics folder, but due to your dogmatism I have now >1800 files in 113 folders in the General Morality & Ethics Folder.
Keep going, you will not be wasting your time is assisting someone in expanding his knowledge on morality and ethics.
This comment, and most of the things you ever say, amounts to nothing but say-so. You just grant powers to your personal hallucination over the hallucinations of others.