The general problem with VA's post here is that it doesn't even amount to an argument. It is a disjointed set of assertions. Note the finish: after not having supported his assertion, he then tries to shift the burden to someone with a different opinion.
A little detail then:
His first apparant support:
An appeal to popularity or perhaps self-evidence.By now 2023, I believe it is common knowledge for any one who is rational to accept the above without doubts even given that Science has its own weaknesses and limitations.
This is a stacking the death fallacy or decision.When I claim scientific [also mathematics] facts are the most credible and reliable in terms of credibility, reliability & Objectivity to contrast to non-scientific facts, I am comparing the best of the best of their results.
How is that rational. To demonstrate that FSK 1 is the best, I will only look at the good results. And notice: this goes against the scientific FSK itself. So, whatever FSK he is using to evaluate FSKs is not the scientific one. Is the one he is using more accurate than the scientific FSK. What evidence does he have that it works?
Next he announces his plan for evaluation:
But then does not do this.To compare credibility we can use the following criteria to rate each field of knowledge, i.e. Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
- 1. Objectivity
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness
Let's just double check: the title of the thread is 'why the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable'. But this is not demonstrated. And let me be clear: it's not just that the argument fails. There is no argument. In this part of his post he talks about what he might do, but does not do.
Then we get the odd...
Here it is not about truth but how helpful the FSK turns out to be. I don't think that's Ethically Neutral, one of the original criteria.To the above I would add "utility" and contribution to the well-being of humanity taking into account its potential dangers as well.
He goes on with the plan:
A circular plan with not defined adjectives like 'appropriate'.To evaluate and compare the credibility, reliability and objectivity, we will prepare a proper format to list down all the relevant criteria with appropriate weightings.
The FSK that has the highest score would have the highest credibility, reliability, and objectivity.
And here he admits two things in that first clause: he hoped to find such an evaluation, not actually carry it out. So, 1) he never intended to do this and has not done it here and 2) he can't find someone else who has done this. The second clause means 'he believes the assertion that science is the best FSK.I have not come across a prepared computation, but intuitively based on present knowledge and views, I predict Science [or mathematics] will come up as the top two.
So we're gone through a lot of responsible sounding intentions of something that he did not intend to do himself and are left with absolutely not support for his thesis at all.
Note: we may have all sorts of sympathy for his belief - that science is the most credible FSK, but this post shows little understanding of how one supports an idea.
Then we find out that instead of support his post is a prediction...
It's good that all he is asking for, at this point, is the name of the non-science FSK.Any one who disagrees with my prediction, name me which non-science FSKs that would have a higher degree of credibility, reliability and objectivity than Science or mathematics?
But this is a burden shift maneuver. Suddenly you, I predict, will find yourself expected to justify, as opposed to what he has done, your position.
One interesting thing is that he has a non-science FSK that he used to arrive at his conclusion that science is the best FSK. Perhaps he could present that FSK and justify that one.
One could respond something like this:
My intuition is the best FSK. My common sense in 2023 tells me it is the most effective. I plan to someday evaluate it using the following criteria:
- 1. Objectivity
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Reliability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness
