VA vs. PH - Morality is Objective

[FlashDangerpants]

Credibility: the quality of being trusted and believed in.

As a rational person applying critical thinking, do you think the Scientific Cosmological FSK-ed fact of the Big Bang is more credible than the Biblical FSK-ed fact that the Universe was created in 6 days.

Is the legal FSK-ed fact that X is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic evidences by a jury more or less credible than
the legal FSK-ed fact that Y is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic with DNA evidence evidences by a jury.

Hope you get my drift, there can be millions of scenarios [within the linguistic, economics, history, astronomy, natural science, legal, political, sports, medicine, etc. FSKs] based on the above re the comparison of credibility and objectivity within different FSKs and different FSK-ed facts.

The rational reason for holding that DNA evidence can identify a person at a crime scene is based on objectivity in the terms I have defined. Objectivity that results from properties of objects in the world that are open to examination by anybody. This is a difference of type that you do not acknowledge.

You missed my point again.
I have acknowledged what you are stating above.

My points;
All facts must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects].
A human-based FSK dictates Objectivity.
FSK-ed facts are FSK-ed objective*.

* I believe not in your sense and view of objectivity which is grounded on an illusion.

ALL specific human-based FSKs are of varying degrees of credibility, reliability and thus objectivity which rated based on the following features, i.e.

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
12. Others [?]
see:
viewtopic.php?p=625050#p625050

viewtopic.php?p=625051#p625051

You've taken a list of the supposed benefits of science and just stolen it to repurpose as your means of evaluating... soryy, not evaluating, your method of measuring the worth of the Japanses Table Manners FSK?

Why are 'precision' and 'accuracy' seperate entries in this list, but fitness for purpose isn't even in the list. On what grounds can you measure two competing morality-proper-FSK-Things for ethical neutrality and why do we want ethical neutrality in a morality FSK?

How is any of this shit judged and weighted? It's all opinions. It's all a popularity contest. Your list just a facade to make an opinion poll look a bit like a measurement of the object, not of opinions about it.

But "credibility" is just a set of feels that some people form about a thing isn't it?

The human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective based on the above criteria.

Other FSKs, e.g. the theological FSK lacks certain of the above features and where it has other features, they are of low qualities. As such, its resultant objectivity is very low in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

When we do a rating exercise for all human-based FSKs [each at their best], other than mathematics, their rating will be lower than that of the scientific FSK [at its best].

Get the point?

I do get the point. Sadly the point is that once you dissolve the link between the objective external world and "objectivity" as a tactic to justify elevation of your every whim to "objectivity" things are doomed to get very silly. I would like to point out that this isn't a general dig at antirealists, it's directed at you. You have wildly overinterpreted the whole thing in pursuit of motivated reasoning.

Your scores and ratings are subjective. You would give Theology a 1 out of 10 for predictive power, Immanuel Can would give it 11 out of 10. "Systematic exploration" is so vague that anything can have any score, IC gives his own religion FSK thing 20 out of 10. Everything gets top marks for "repeatability", IC grants his religion thing 43 out of 10 because God is infinite and he can therefore repeat stuff for longer than even science can.

It is now officila that IC has measured his religion thing and it got even better marks than science. His FSK is the new Golden Standard against which you should measure these things. You "measured"/"rated"/"scored"/"made up some numbers" your own FSK thing and you got the score relative to science that you wanted too. This game is easy, everyone is a winner. I can see why you think it will catch on.

From the above, I have acknowledged your point re the features that make the human-based scientific FSK having the highest credibility, reliability and therefrom objectivity.
Objectivity is not confined to science, but all variables of reality are conditioned to a human-based FSK with a range of objectivity.

All you've done is try to pull off a bait and switch. The only victim to fall for this swindle is its author.

Your explanation for the credibility you assign to science is just based on the number of people that think science is good at explaining stuff. The number of people that do the trusting, nothing to do with the quality of information to be trusted.

It is not about the number of people, if so, it would be an ad populum fallacy.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

Read that back for yourself. It obviously is about the number of people.

The quality of information to be trusted by rational standard will depend on the overall rating of the specific human-based FSK in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

The pragmatically and utility of the above approach is, based on the common denominator of objectivity, we have some quantified basis to dump theology, pseudoscience, miracle claims, moral opinions of rightness & wrongness and the like to the bottom of the pile of objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of scientific claims.
This completeness control will avoid the 'till the cows come home' scenario.

The point here those claims with low objectivity are not necessary useless, e.g. theology is of a critical necessity for the majority [which they cannot live comfortably without] due to their psychological state at present but not the future.
As such, theology [& others] can claim to be FSK-ed objective, but it should [or driven to] know and be aware of its FSK-Objectivity status [low or negligible].

One good example is the Santa-Claus-FSK as FSK-ed objective where every of its membership understand where its objectivity lies, i.e. negligible objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK.

The above thesis is valid and sound.
You cannot find any serious holes in it?

Therefore morality can take the above path, i.e. the existence of a human-based moral FSK with near equivalent objectivity to the scientific FSK, thus dictating objective moral facts, so, FSK-ed Morality is FSK-ed Objective.

Note you non-FSK objectivity is grounded on an illusion, thus a non-starter.

That's all self contradictory. If Santa was an object in the real world, it would be objectively true that there was a santa. He isn't, that is why it isn't.

[Iwannaplato]

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
12. Others [?]

How is any of this shit judged and weighted? It's all opinions.

I've asked that question a couple of times and going back a long ways. One way I came at this was to say that this then is also some kind of FSK. But he refers to science as the most credible FSK. It isn't science - though I think you are correct that it is someone's view of science - and yet it is used to compare FSK's including science. So, one would think it is more accurate than science and hence the most credible. And does it use scientific testing for those parts that it can? So, isn't that a kind of epistemological conflict of interests. The theologians can use their methods to confirm their approach is best.

In any case, it's part of his ad hoc filling holes in the dike approach.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The rational reason for holding that DNA evidence can identify a person at a crime scene is based on objectivity in the terms I have defined. Objectivity that results from properties of objects in the world that are open to examination by anybody. This is a difference of type that you do not acknowledge.

You missed my point again.
I have acknowledged what you are stating above.

My points;
All facts must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects].
A human-based FSK dictates Objectivity.
FSK-ed facts are FSK-ed objective*.

* I believe not in your sense and view of objectivity which is grounded on an illusion.

ALL specific human-based FSKs are of varying degrees of credibility, reliability and thus objectivity which rated based on the following features, i.e.

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
12. Others [?]
see:
viewtopic.php?p=625050#p625050

viewtopic.php?p=625051#p625051

You've taken a list of the supposed benefits of science and just stolen it to repurpose as your means of evaluating... soryy, not evaluating, your method of measuring the worth of the Japanses Table Manners FSK?

Why are 'precision' and 'accuracy' seperate entries in this list, but fitness for purpose isn't even in the list. On what grounds can you measure two competing morality-proper-FSK-Things for ethical neutrality and why do we want ethical neutrality in a morality FSK?

How is any of this shit judged and weighted? It's all opinions. It's all a popularity contest. Your list just a facade to make an opinion poll look a bit like a measurement of the object, not of opinions about it.

But "credibility" is just a set of feels that some people form about a thing isn't it?

The above is not an exhaustive list of criteria to rate the credibility, reliability and therefrom the objectivity of a human-based objectivity of ALL possible human-based FSR-FSK be it be Science, Morality, Table-Manners etc.

Basically, Japanese Table Manners FSK qualifies as a human-based FSK, thus dictates objectivity, but what degrees of objectivity has to be assessed based on acceptable list of criteria.

Re Japanese Table Manners FSK, we refer to the whole list of criteria and put a rating of say 1 [low] to 100 [high] against each criteria subject to some degree of consensus between assessors.
Anything on the list of criteria that is not applicable to a particular FSK, we put a "0".
So, if 'precision' and 'accuracy' is not applicable to Japanese Table Manners FSK, then we put a "0" to them.

If there are many "0"s for a FSK, it is likely to end up with a very low degrees of objectivity.

What is important is the above constructing of the tool of assessment should not be done flimsily, frivolously and on a slip shot basis but on conditions of high rationality and critical thinking.

The criteria can be weighted taking into the various conditions and should be done on a basis of high rationality and critical thinking.
The point is the approach must be VERY transparent and anyone deliberating on the results must be aware of the all conditions and limitations.

Btw, we are dealing with morality here, so we are more concern with the critical elements [where fatalities and mortality are involved] than the frivolous elements of Japanese Table Manners FSK.

The human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective based on the above criteria.

Other FSKs, e.g. the theological FSK lacks certain of the above features and where it has other features, they are of low qualities. As such, its resultant objectivity is very low in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

When we do a rating exercise for all human-based FSKs [each at their best], other than mathematics, their rating will be lower than that of the scientific FSK [at its best].

Get the point?

I do get the point. Sadly the point is that once you dissolve the link between the objective external world and "objectivity" as a tactic to justify elevation of your every whim to "objectivity" things are doomed to get very silly. I would like to point out that this isn't a general dig at antirealists, it's directed at you. You have wildly overinterpreted the whole thing in pursuit of motivated reasoning.

It will not get silly if when we incorporate high rationality and critical thinking.
If idiots, fools and dumb participates, we should know where they stand.

Your scores and ratings are subjective. You would give Theology a 1 out of 10 for predictive power, Immanuel Can would give it 11 out of 10. "Systematic exploration" is so vague that anything can have any score, IC gives his own religion FSK thing 20 out of 10. Everything gets top marks for "repeatability", IC grants his religion thing 43 out of 10 because God is infinite and he can therefore repeat stuff for longer than even science can.

It is now officila that IC has measured his religion thing and it got even better marks than science. His FSK is the new Golden Standard against which you should measure these things. You "measured"/"rated"/"scored"/"made up some numbers" your own FSK thing and you got the score relative to science that you wanted too. This game is easy, everyone is a winner. I can see why you think it will catch on.

Obviously every rating by various people has to be contested.
The point is different groups of people will submit their own FSK rating.

Even at present, every group is claiming their truth is the true one, but why there is now at present, scientific knowledge of the natural science as regarded as reliable by many including theists and religionists.

The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings. In 1950, in the encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory. Pope John Paul II went a bit further in 1996, calling evolution “more than a hypothesis.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -religion/#:

I have often said that if science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly. We should always adopt a view that accords with the facts. If upon investigation we find that there is reason and proof for a point, then we should accept it.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2018/10/ ... -emotions/

As such, there must be something special about science that even theists and religionist accept as credible
while no science will accept any claim from theists and religionist unless they conform to the conditions of the scientific FSK.

Therefore it is not difficult to differentiate the personal claims of theists and put them in their proper rational and critical thinking perspective.
For example Repeatability: how can theists prove the empirical existence of their God for a start even before considering repeatability.

From the above, I have acknowledged your point re the features that make the human-based scientific FSK having the highest credibility, reliability and therefrom objectivity.
Objectivity is not confined to science, but all variables of reality are conditioned to a human-based FSK with a range of objectivity.

All you've done is try to pull off a bait and switch. The only victim to fall for this swindle is its author.

Point is "I have acknowledged your point re the features that make the human-based scientific FSK having the highest credibility, reliability and therefrom objectivity" to counter your accusation.

Your explanation for the credibility you assign to science is just based on the number of people that think science is good at explaining stuff. The number of people that do the trusting, nothing to do with the quality of information to be trusted.

It is not about the number of people, if so, it would be an ad populum fallacy.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

Read that back for yourself. It obviously is about the number of people.

I see you missed my point.
If it is about the number of people then an ad populum fallacy.
I am referring to say, the scientific FSK, how can that be based on the number of people, when the number of scientists in consensus with their peers to a theory are merely a small group.
It is the credibility of the Framework and System, processes and principles that count.

The quality of information to be trusted by rational standard will depend on the overall rating of the specific human-based FSK in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

The pragmatically and utility of the above approach is, based on the common denominator of objectivity, we have some quantified basis to dump theology, pseudoscience, miracle claims, moral opinions of rightness & wrongness and the like to the bottom of the pile of objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of scientific claims.
This completeness control will avoid the 'till the cows come home' scenario.

The point here those claims with low objectivity are not necessary useless, e.g. theology is of a critical necessity for the majority [which they cannot live comfortably without] due to their psychological state at present but not the future.
As such, theology [& others] can claim to be FSK-ed objective, but it should [or driven to] know and be aware of its FSK-Objectivity status [low or negligible].

One good example is the Santa-Claus-FSK as FSK-ed objective where every of its membership understand where its objectivity lies, i.e. negligible objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK.

The above thesis is valid and sound.
You cannot find any serious holes in it?

Therefore morality can take the above path, i.e. the existence of a human-based moral FSK with near equivalent objectivity to the scientific FSK, thus dictating objective moral facts, so, FSK-ed Morality is FSK-ed Objective.

Note you non-FSK objectivity is grounded on an illusion, thus a non-starter.

That's all self contradictory. If Santa was an object in the real world, it would be objectively true that there was a santa. He isn't, that is why it isn't.

Nah, you are shifting gear to your definition of "what is objectivity" which I argued is grounded on an illusion.

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

That Santa is objective in this case is based on FSK-ed objectivity not on any basis as an object.
The Santa-FSK is conditioned upon a human-based Santa-FSK which dictates Objectivity, i.e. FSK-ed objectivity not your mind-independent objectivity which is illusory.
And in this case, based on rationality and critical thinking, it is evident the Santa as FSK-ed objective is at the extreme of low objectivity, nevertheless still within the continuum of objectivity.

Note 0.001 greyness is 99.99% white and 0.001 black;
you cannot deny it is grey, albeit of low degree of greyness within the greyness continuum.
This is valid and sound.
It is the same with FSK-ed objectivity, the only valid and sound objectivity.

Note again,
your sense and views of objectivity as real is illusory, i.e. grounded on an illusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is not about the number of people, if so, it would be an ad populum fallacy.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

Read that back for yourself. It obviously is about the number of people.

I see you missed my point.
If it is about the number of people then an ad populum fallacy.
I am referring to say, the scientific FSK, how can that be based on the number of people, when the number of scientists in consensus with their peers to a theory are merely a small group.
It is the credibility of the Framework and System, processes and principles that count.

So the credibility of an FSK depends upon the credibility of some other FSK used to assign FSK credibilities just like IWP says?
But ultimately the credibility of the chain depends upon numbers of believers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Read that back for yourself. It obviously is about the number of people.

I see you missed my point.
If it is about the number of people then an ad populum fallacy.
I am referring to say, the scientific FSK, how can that be based on the number of people, when the number of scientists in consensus with their peers to a theory are merely a small group.
It is the credibility of the Framework and System, processes and principles that count.

So the credibility of an FSK depends upon the credibility of some other FSK used to assign FSK credibilities just like IWP says?
But ultimately the credibility of the chain depends upon numbers of believers.

In a way yes, since the principle is whatever the variable of reality, it must be conditioned upon a FSK which dictates objectivity. I don't see the problem with this at all.
In this case, the final criteria is that of rationality and critical thinking.

As I had highlighted, even theists and religionists find the scientific FSK credible, reliable with some reasonable objectivity from their perspective to accept certain scientific theories not never the way round.

There must be a reasonable number of believers that accept membership within a Constitution, principles, processes etc. to qualify as a human-based FSK that dictates objectivity.
The number of people is not the critical criteria but it is the compliance with the required conditions and criteria that count.

For example the theological FSKs of the similar features has is adopted by >6 billion theists worldwide whereas the community of scientists are probably in the regions of 10s of thousands, but the scientific FSK is 99.99% degree of objectivity while the theology FSK has 0.001% degrees of objectivity.

[FlashDangerpants]

I see you missed my point.
If it is about the number of people then an ad populum fallacy.
I am referring to say, the scientific FSK, how can that be based on the number of people, when the number of scientists in consensus with their peers to a theory are merely a small group.
It is the credibility of the Framework and System, processes and principles that count.

So the credibility of an FSK depends upon the credibility of some other FSK used to assign FSK credibilities just like IWP says?
But ultimately the credibility of the chain depends upon numbers of believers.

In a way yes, since the principle is whatever the variable of reality, it must be conditioned upon a FSK which dictates objectivity. I don't see the problem with this at all.

Infinite regress.

In this case, the final criteria is that of rationality and critical thinking.

"Critical Thinking" as determined by yet another FSK that uses nothing for inputs other than subjective viewpoints and collective hallucination?

You set aside the rules of logic when they don't suit you.

• You've long argued that mutually contradictory facts can all be true at one and the same time.

• You refuse to accept that circular arguments are fallacious even when they require the output to provide the initial input and are therefore viciously circular.

• You've probably just written something about why infinite regress is ok when you do it.

As I had highlighted, even theists and religionists find the scientific FSK credible, reliable with some reasonable objectivity from their perspective to accept certain scientific theories not never the way round.

They accept it because they read your list and agreed with the "precision" part? No, of course they didn't. They agree with me that science references and confines its discourse to objective properties of the external world.

There must be a reasonable number of believers that accept membership within a Constitution, principles, processes etc. to qualify as a human-based FSK that dictates objectivity.

Your own morality-proper FSK doesn't meet that requirement, yet you assign it massive credibility scores anyway on the basis of your personal "confidence". But it isn't a human-based-FSK because it only has one person. You've never converted a single additional believer to your religion.

The number of people is not the critical criteria but it is the compliance with the required conditions and criteria that count.

For example the theological FSKs of the similar features has is adopted by >6 billion theists worldwide whereas the community of scientists are probably in the regions of 10s of thousands, but the scientific FSK is 99.99% degree of objectivity while the theology FSK has 0.001% degrees of objectivity.

The objectivity of 0.001 is a fake number you pulled out of your arse. Absolutely anyone else can create their own FSK. They can assign their own scores on a basis that is just as objective as yours and if there are more of those people than there are of you, the single only you that has nobody else on your team .... then they win and you lose.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the credibility of an FSK depends upon the credibility of some other FSK used to assign FSK credibilities just like IWP says?
But ultimately the credibility of the chain depends upon numbers of believers.

In a way yes, since the principle is whatever the variable of reality, it must be conditioned upon a FSK which dictates objectivity. I don't see the problem with this at all.

Infinite regress.

With humans there is self-referencing, so will deal with infinite regress.
At some point there is optimality.
Scientific facts as stated by Popper are at best 'polished conjectures'.
So, there is the question of where does it end?
But yet scientific facts are more credible and objective than those from other FSKs in practice - where even theists and religionists rely on them.

In this case, the final criteria is that of rationality and critical thinking.

"Critical Thinking" as determined by yet another FSK that uses nothing for inputs other than subjective viewpoints and collective hallucination?

You set aside the rules of logic when they don't suit you.

• You've long argued that mutually contradictory facts can all be true at one and the same time.

• You refuse to accept that circular arguments are fallacious even when they require the output to provide the initial input and are therefore viciously circular.

• You've probably just written something about why infinite regress is ok when you do it.

Do you understand what 'critical thinking' is about precisely?
read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

I recognize the idea of infinite regress, i.e. its turtle all the way, so what?
It is not an issue, if I do not stop the regress with a 'father of all turtles' i.e. God or ?? in your case, the noumenon?
What is critical is how we recognize the last turtle that is verified and justified within the scientific FSK.

Contradictory facts can exist within the same time but in a different sense [FSK].
Where have I insist contradictory facts are all true at the same time and in the same sense [FSK]?

Generally, circularity in classical logic is fallacious.
But note, human nature is optimized via self-referencing which in a way appear to be circular when deliberated intellectually.
Thus what you perceived as circular, if applied in certain human contexts, is valid as a matter of self-referencing.
If you want to charge me with 'circularity' you have to refer to specific examples.

As I had highlighted, even theists and religionists find the scientific FSK credible, reliable with some reasonable objectivity from their perspective to accept certain scientific theories not never the way round.

They accept it because they read your list and agreed with the "precision" part? No, of course they didn't. They agree with me that science references and confines its discourse to objective properties of the external world.

It is not as simple as that.
That they agreed with Science is intuitive and reference to experiences of others, if we investigate thoroughly, it must be based on many of the criteria that make science reliable and objective on those facts they have agreed with.

There must be a reasonable number of believers that accept membership within a Constitution, principles, processes etc. to qualify as a human-based FSK that dictates objectivity.

Your own morality-proper FSK doesn't meet that requirement, yet you assign it massive credibility scores anyway on the basis of your personal "confidence". But it isn't a human-based-FSK because it only has one person. You've never converted a single additional believer to your religion.

We have gone through this before.
Yes, so far the proposed morality-proper FSK is one person's 'mine' proposal.

In theory, it is to be FSK based, thus, Objectivity is dictated therefrom.
It will be in the same FSK models as other moral-FSK that are already in existence and practiced, e.g. consequentialism, deontology, theistic, Utilitarianism, etc.
My proposed moral FSK will not be totally new but it is an improvement of the combination of the existing moral FSKS, critically with only inputs from the scientific FSK.
My proposed will be have a higher degree of credibility and objectivity.

As I had said before, all the major inputs into my proposed morality-proper FSK MUST come from the scientific-FSK, so, will have a high degree of objectivity in comparison to the objectivity of the scientific FSK.
Compare that to the theological moral FSK which is objectivity by default but has no inputs from the scientific FSK at all but merely based on divine doctrines.

The number of people is not the critical criteria but it is the compliance with the required conditions and criteria that count.

For example the theological FSKs of the similar features has is adopted by >6 billion theists worldwide whereas the community of scientists are probably in the regions of 10s of thousands, but the scientific FSK is 99.99% degree of objectivity while the theology FSK has 0.001% degrees of objectivity.

The objectivity of 0.001 is a fake number you pulled out of your arse. Absolutely anyone else can create their own FSK. They can assign their own scores on a basis that is just as objective as yours and if there are more of those people than there are of you, the single only you that has nobody else on your team .... then they win and you lose.

You are not intelligent [so childish & naive] in this case.
If we assign the scientific FSK as the standard at 99.99% [99.99% empirical] it is obvious the theological with zero empirical evidence will be at the opposite end at 0.001%.
If you cannot make that sort of inference you are not intelligent at all in this case, thus thinking out of your arse.

Well, you can formulate your own model of moral FSK [objective by default], give me the details, claim your score of credibility and objectivity, therefrom I can give you a rough rating in terms of reliability and objectivity.

If you were to claim all the major inputs to your moral-FSK must be from the scientific FSK, then [based on that claim alone] I can grant it is possible to have a high credibility and objectivity subject to further investigation of the details for a confirmation.

In a way, we can roughly estimate the degree of credibility and objectivity of any human based FSK based on what % of its input are from the scientific FSK.
Compare,
1. the credibility and objectivity of a legal FSK on crimes where majority of evidences are relied upon the scientific-FSK [forensic science] to,
2. a the credibility and objectivity of a legal FSK on crimes, somewhere in the middle of Africa, where evidence to support a crime is based on a kangaroo styled court, hearsays from witnesses, the judgments of prosecutors and judges with nothing based on forensic science,
surely one can judge [on first take before a detailed analysis] the credibility and objectivity of 1 will be higher than that of 2.

The point is your dogmatic drive just to refute for its sake and its ideology has inhibited your intelligence, rationality and made you naive on the above issues.

[Iwannaplato]

If we assign the scientific FSK as the standard at 99.99% [99.99% empirical] it is obvious the theological with zero empirical evidence will be at the opposite end at 0.001%.

Here's what he means by saying you are pulling the numbers out of your ass.
First, your justification here is to pull a number out the air for science.
If you didn't simply pull the number out of the air, then how did you arrive at that number.
I think you understand that FDP is generally positive about science. He's not criticizing you for giving science a high rating. He's pointing out that you are making up numbers. And let's think about the process that would determine that number. Do we look at current conclusions in science and evaluate their accuracy? With what FSK? Do we look at science historically? That is look at times that previous theories and consensus scientific positions were overturned. How much consensus is considered part of the scientific FSK? How far back in time do we look? How do we know what is current held as true in science will hold in 100 years? What is the FSK qualified to judge the accuracy of the scientific FSK?

Instead of saying science very accurate or our most accurate, you came up with a number. Then you used this number to come up with theology/religion's accuracy. One made up number leading to the other. Again,
I am pretty sure FDP will be sympathetic to the some kind of verbal estimate without numbers. But you are presenting numbers, as if there was some way to determine them.

(and by the way, there are empirical aspects to religious belief. It's just they are interpreted differently than religious people interpret them by those who prioritize other FSKs. The other FSKs do not consider these experiences evidence. Those within religious FSKs do. William James' The Variety of Religious Experiences has an interesting philosophical take on that. In fact the whole tension there parallels the tension between you and PH on moral facts. )

If you think this is unfair - saying you are making these numbers up - show us the process for some FSK in the middle. Show the steps in determining the numbers for the history FSK, for example. How you determine it is 59.345% rather than 63.901%. What is the evaluating FSK? How does it determine statistics?

[FlashDangerpants]

In a way yes, since the principle is whatever the variable of reality, it must be conditioned upon a FSK which dictates objectivity. I don't see the problem with this at all.

Infinite regress.

With humans there is self-referencing, so will deal with infinite regress.
At some point there is optimality.
Scientific facts as stated by Popper are at best 'polished conjectures'.
So, there is the question of where does it end?
But yet scientific facts are more credible and objective than those from other FSKs in practice - where even theists and religionists rely on them.

You abandoned your system there to appeal to how obvious it is that science is good. But you have given this system responsibility for explaining why sciecne is good. So you just unravelled your own argument.

In this case, the final criteria is that of rationality and critical thinking.

"Critical Thinking" as determined by yet another FSK that uses nothing for inputs other than subjective viewpoints and collective hallucination?

You set aside the rules of logic when they don't suit you.

• You've long argued that mutually contradictory facts can all be true at one and the same time.

• You refuse to accept that circular arguments are fallacious even when they require the output to provide the initial input and are therefore viciously circular.

• You've probably just written something about why infinite regress is ok when you do it.

Do you understand what 'critical thinking' is about precisely?
read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Critical thinking is impossible to define. You think you are doing excellent critical thiking when you design a hiearchy for lining up a bunch of concepts and giving them random numbers. That's not it at all as far I am concerned. There is NO rationale for you to construct some dumb critical-thinky-FSK-thing if that's the kind of shenanigans you are about to get up to.

I recognize the idea of infinite regress, i.e. its turtle all the way, so what?
It is not an issue, if I do not stop the regress with a 'father of all turtles' i.e. God or ?? in your case, the noumenon?
What is critical is how we recognize the last turtle that is verified and justified within the scientific FSK.

Contradictory facts can exist within the same time but in a different sense [FSK].
Where have I insist contradictory facts are all true at the same time and in the same sense [FSK]?

Generally, circularity in classical logic is fallacious.
But note, human nature is optimized via self-referencing which in a way appear to be circular when deliberated intellectually.
Thus what you perceived as circular, if applied in certain human contexts, is valid as a matter of self-referencing.
If you want to charge me with 'circularity' you have to refer to specific examples.

So, like I said, you set aside the rules of logic when they don't suit you. There you have given one example of just not caring about infinite regress, not getting the point of non-contradiction at all, and special pleading that you are allowed to call vicious circles virtuous at will.

I've charged you with circularity many times in specific detail and you never once attempted to undo the circle. But today's point is on topic in reference to your above comment. If you mean it when say "the final criteria is that of rationality and critical thinking" you really ought to be expending less effort on skirting rationality.

As I had highlighted, even theists and religionists find the scientific FSK credible, reliable with some reasonable objectivity from their perspective to accept certain scientific theories not never the way round.

They accept it because they read your list and agreed with the "precision" part? No, of course they didn't. They agree with me that science references and confines its discourse to objective properties of the external world.

It is not as simple as that.
That they agreed with Science is intuitive and reference to experiences of others, if we investigate thoroughly, it must be based on many of the criteria that make science reliable and objective on those facts they have agreed with.

Why are you lying to me? You know that it is exactly as simple as that. You have to take that into account. You cannot possibly ever account for the credibility of science without the front and centre being about how more or less everyone is a scientific realist. Even if that position is naive, you know that it is true, and it accounts overwhelmingly for the popular belief that science is the best way to investigate scientific phenomena.

Nobody in the world cares about your FSK theories. Everybody thinks science is fundamentally realistic. You are trying to benefit the first by piggy backing off the second, quit lying to yourself about that.

There must be a reasonable number of believers that accept membership within a Constitution, principles, processes etc. to qualify as a human-based FSK that dictates objectivity.

Your own morality-proper FSK doesn't meet that requirement, yet you assign it massive credibility scores anyway on the basis of your personal "confidence". But it isn't a human-based-FSK because it only has one person. You've never converted a single additional believer to your religion.

We have gone through this before.
Yes, so far the proposed morality-proper FSK is one person's 'mine' proposal.

In theory, it is to be FSK based, thus, Objectivity is dictated therefrom.
It will be in the same FSK models as other moral-FSK that are already in existence and practiced, e.g. consequentialism, deontology, theistic, Utilitarianism, etc.
My proposed moral FSK will not be totally new but it is an improvement of the combination of the existing moral FSKS, critically with only inputs from the scientific FSK.
My proposed will be have a higher degree of credibility and objectivity.

Your FSK has no credibility at all today. Your grounds for assuming it will have high credibility are nothing more than that you find it appealing. You are assigning yourself a score in a game where you are making up the rules as you go along. You can only do that because there are no other players for this game.

As I had said before, all the major inputs into my proposed morality-proper FSK MUST come from the scientific-FSK, so, will have a high degree of objectivity in comparison to the objectivity of the scientific FSK.
Compare that to the theological moral FSK which is objectivity by default but has no inputs from the scientific FSK at all but merely based on divine doctrines.

How will it have objectivity if it doesn't have credibility first? It can't have credibility if nobody believes in it, and your ersatz alternative to objectivity is also just a popularity contest. You are awarding crediblity points just because it is your game of make-believe, so you are in charge, aren't you? Surely you can see that you aren't working within your own rules here.

The number of people is not the critical criteria but it is the compliance with the required conditions and criteria that count.

For example the theological FSKs of the similar features has is adopted by >6 billion theists worldwide whereas the community of scientists are probably in the regions of 10s of thousands, but the scientific FSK is 99.99% degree of objectivity while the theology FSK has 0.001% degrees of objectivity.

The objectivity of 0.001 is a fake number you pulled out of your arse. Absolutely anyone else can create their own FSK. They can assign their own scores on a basis that is just as objective as yours and if there are more of those people than there are of you, the single only you that has nobody else on your team .... then they win and you lose.

You are not intelligent [so childish & naive] in this case.
If we assign the scientific FSK as the standard at 99.99% [99.99% empirical] it is obvious the theological with zero empirical evidence will be at the opposite end at 0.001%.
If you cannot make that sort of inference you are not intelligent at all in this case, thus thinking out of your arse.

It is far from obvious that this is true, it is arbitrary, opinionated, and baseless. Your case is not based on measuring anything, but on fraudulent numbers.

Well, you can formulate your own model of moral FSK [objective by default], give me the details, claim your score of credibility and objectivity, therefrom I can give you a rough rating in terms of reliability and objectivity.

Yes, you can do that. What you don't understand yet is that it is a problem that you can do that. You can give this "rough" made up number to anything you see off the top of your head and you can fool yourself that it is part of your system of measuring things. But it's just you, a weird little guy, putting meaningless numbers on things.

If you were to claim all the major inputs to your moral-FSK must be from the scientific FSK, then [based on that claim alone] I can grant it is possible to have a high credibility and objectivity subject to further investigation of the details for a confirmation.

That's a special pleading rule. But I don't want to divert away from the basis of your numbers and the bandwagon thing yet. We might have to come back to this one.

In a way, we can roughly estimate the degree of credibility and objectivity of any human based FSK based on what % of its input are from the scientific FSK.
Compare,
1. the credibility and objectivity of a legal FSK on crimes where majority of evidences are relied upon the scientific-FSK [forensic science] to,
2. a the credibility and objectivity of a legal FSK on crimes, somewhere in the middle of Africa, where evidence to support a crime is based on a kangaroo styled court, hearsays from witnesses, the judgments of prosecutors and judges with nothing based on forensic science,
surely one can judge [on first take before a detailed analysis] the credibility and objectivity of 1 will be higher than that of 2.

The point is your dogmatic drive just to refute for its sake and its ideology has inhibited your intelligence, rationality and made you naive on the above issues.

You know that nobody uses numbers and scores to do that comparison except you. And that meaningless numbers and scores shed no new light on such investigations, right?

It's time now for you to accept an observation that somebody else made.... you only do the numbers thing because you find it comforting personally, and that's also why you obsessively categorise. I don't mind you doing those thngs, nobody minds. But at some point you need to reel in the arrogance it seems to inspire in you. You can't lord it over me or Pete or IWP with numbers that signify nothing.

[FlashDangerpants]

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
12. Others [?]

How is any of this shit judged and weighted? It's all opinions.

I've asked that question a couple of times and going back a long ways. One way I came at this was to say that this then is also some kind of FSK. But he refers to science as the most credible FSK. It isn't science - though I think you are correct that it is someone's view of science - and yet it is used to compare FSK's including science. So, one would think it is more accurate than science and hence the most credible. And does it use scientific testing for those parts that it can? So, isn't that a kind of epistemological conflict of interests. The theologians can use their methods to confirm their approach is best.

In any case, it's part of his ad hoc filling holes in the dike approach.

The thing that's missing in VA's description of his system of systems is the enormous weighting factor of VA's personal preferences. He attached large numbers to things he likes, small numbers to things he dislikes, and then the magic is that by virtue of being rendered numeric, his tastes have now become measurements.

Other people's numbers are true or false only in virtue not of what they measure, but proximity to VA's numbers.

[Iwannaplato]

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
12. Others [?]

How is any of this shit judged and weighted? It's all opinions.

I've asked that question a couple of times and going back a long ways. One way I came at this was to say that this then is also some kind of FSK. But he refers to science as the most credible FSK. It isn't science - though I think you are correct that it is someone's view of science - and yet it is used to compare FSK's including science. So, one would think it is more accurate than science and hence the most credible. And does it use scientific testing for those parts that it can? So, isn't that a kind of epistemological conflict of interests. The theologians can use their methods to confirm their approach is best.

In any case, it's part of his ad hoc filling holes in the dike approach.

The thing that's missing in VA's description of his system of systems is the enormous weighting factor of VA's personal preferences. He attached large numbers to things he likes, small numbers to things he dislikes, and then the magic is that by virtue of being rendered numeric, his tastes have now become measurements.

Other people's numbers are true or false only in virtue not of what they measure, but proximity to VA's numbers.

Yeah. I noticed here or elsewhere that he says that theology zero empirical. hence it is the worst FSK. But theology isn't non-empirical, the rub comes around interpretation. And I think this opens the door for the comparison between theology and morality. What are the empirical aspects of each? What is the correct interpretation of the empirical aspects of each? What FSK gets to decide? Let alone how to assign numbers.

And then how do we assign numbers to moral FSKs? There isn't one moral FSK, but rather many? Who judged them and on what grounds? If we prioritize survival and this trumps everything, does this end mining and lumber jobs? Perhaps all children should be homeschooled to avoid going outside where it is generally more dangerous. And so on. How about certain classical moralities: Japanese, ancient Greek, where nobility, and the grace of one's death matter much more than longevity? Are they wrong to prioritize this way? On what FSKs grounds? If we must follow the body, must we then accept cancer, aging, congential diseases and so on? When do we get to override what the science-biology FSK would say is a natural propensity (an oughtness)?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If we assign the scientific FSK as the standard at 99.99% [99.99% empirical] it is obvious the theological with zero empirical evidence will be at the opposite end at 0.001%.

Here's what he means by saying you are pulling the numbers out of your ass.
First, your justification here is to pull a number out the air for science.
If you didn't simply pull the number out of the air, then how did you arrive at that number.
I think you understand that FDP is generally positive about science. He's not criticizing you for giving science a high rating. He's pointing out that you are making up numbers. And let's think about the process that would determine that number. Do we look at current conclusions in science and evaluate their accuracy? With what FSK? Do we look at science historically? That is look at times that previous theories and consensus scientific positions were overturned. How much consensus is considered part of the scientific FSK? How far back in time do we look? How do we know what is current held as true in science will hold in 100 years? What is the FSK qualified to judge the accuracy of the scientific FSK?

Instead of saying science very accurate or our most accurate, you came up with a number. Then you used this number to come up with theology/religion's accuracy. One made up number leading to the other. Again,
I am pretty sure FDP will be sympathetic to the some kind of verbal estimate without numbers. But you are presenting numbers, as if there was some way to determine them.

(and by the way, there are empirical aspects to religious belief. It's just they are interpreted differently than religious people interpret them by those who prioritize other FSKs. The other FSKs do not consider these experiences evidence. Those within religious FSKs do. William James' The Variety of Religious Experiences has an interesting philosophical take on that. In fact the whole tension there parallels the tension between you and PH on moral facts. )

If you think this is unfair - saying you are making these numbers up - show us the process for some FSK in the middle. Show the steps in determining the numbers for the history FSK, for example. How you determine it is 59.345% rather than 63.901%. What is the evaluating FSK? How does it determine statistics?

I am not making up numbers at all.
You are ignorant as shit and insulting your intelligence in not knowing how indexing and establishing standard works.

In indexing and setting standards, first we take something fixed as the standard and compare everything else against that chosen standard.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible, thus setting it as the standard at 99.99 [or 100.00] being empirical based. This is a kindergarten step in setting standard.
If theology is not empirical based [zero empirical], then it would be 0.01 against the standard.

Example, say,
X can score 300 points in an hour in a Game.
We then choose to set his scores as the standard at 100.00* [99.99 or whatever]
IF Y were to score 3 points, then his rating would be 0.01% against the standard.
If Z were to score 150 points then his rating would be 50%.
For the other just divide the score by 300 to get the %.

This is so basic, how come you are SO ignorant of this process of setting standards and measuring against the standard.

FDP? his knowledge is too shallow and thinking too naive to deal with complex moral issues.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not making up numbers at all.
You are ignorant as shit and insulting your intelligence in not knowing how indexing and establishing standard works.

In indexing and setting standards, first we take something fixed as the standard and compare everything else against that chosen standard.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible, thus setting it as the standard at 99.99 [or 100.00] being empirical based. This is a kindergarten step in setting standard.
If theology is not empirical based [zero empirical], then it would be 0.01 against the standard.

Example, say,
X can score 300 points in an hour in a Game.
We then choose to set his scores as the standard at 100.00* [99.99 or whatever]
IF Y were to score 3 points, then his rating would be 0.01% against the standard.
If Z were to score 150 points then his rating would be 50%.
For the other just divide the score by 300 to get the %.

This is so basic, how come you are SO ignorant of this process of setting standards and measuring against the standard.

FDP? his knowledge is too shallow and thinking too naive to deal with complex moral issues.

Sentence 1: A claim to not be making up numbers.

All the othere sentences: A description of how you go about making up the numbers.

[Iwannaplato]

In indexing and setting standards, first we take something fixed

Science is fixed? In what sense. (I mean, I know what you meant. But really science is not fixed in the way other kinds of (things used as) standards are. It's a shifting set of processes with different methodologies and these change over time and have changed over time. It's not like 100 degrees centigrade or 20 questions right out of 30 on the test. Etc. IOW it might be a fine standard for abstract evaluative terms, but getting numbers out of it, or assigning a number to it and then coming up with numbers for other methodologies is just making up numbers. But perhaps after you answer some of the questions below about what the criterion is and how you arrived at the numbers, I'll change my mind)

as the standard and compare everything else against that chosen standard.
I have claimed that the scientific FSK is the most credible, thus setting it as the standard at 99.99 [or 100.00] being empirical based.

Many things are empirical based. Science certainly isn't 100% empirical based, nor 99.99%. It uses deduction and models, for example. But that might not be what you mean, that sentence is a little unclear.

This is a kindergarten step in setting standard.
If theology is not empirical based [zero empirical], then it would be 0.01 against the standard.

If it is zero empirical and these numbers measure the empirical, I don't get why it gets a rating higher than 0: 0.01. Further theology, as I've mentioned before, does have empirical facets, as do many religious beliefs. Empirical just means it's not pure theory, or only Rationalist. The protocols, to use the term broadly, are quite different from science in theology/religion, but there is definitely an empirical facet to most religions and in some it is central. Which doesn't mean they are right (or wrong). Again, take a peek at William James' approach in the Variety of Religious Experiences.

Example, say,
X can score 300 points in an hour in a Game.
We then choose to set his scores as the standard at 100.00* [99.99 or whatever]
IF Y were to score 3 points, then his rating would be 0.01% against the standard.
If Z were to score 150 points then his rating would be 50%.
For the other just divide the score by 300 to get the %.

What is analagous to the score above when we are talking about FSKs. The accuracy of the predictions/models/conclusions? the degree of empiricalness? something else?
How did you determine, for example, an FSK got 3 points? Show me some midrange FSK and how you determined things, please. I think it would help. IOW instead of doing this with an FSK, as I requested, you did this with a game which has clear points. Of course you don't have to write what I request, but the reason I requested working with something like the history FSK is precisely because it would show us how you arrive at numbers with an FSK. I understand how standards can be set with things that have clear point systems.

This is so basic, how come you are SO ignorant of this process of setting standards and measuring against the standard.

I think you could have explained this better and I am asking questions to clarify. If you think asking questions means someone is stupid, you may not interact well with people if in the future you try to gain a wider audience.

How come you leave out so many steps, making it hard to know even what your percentages refer to? Which FSK are you using to determine the levels? Why did you decide not to show me how you would evaluate something like history? Because then we would have to see the steps and it would be useful. Where's the step where you showed what exactly this is a standard of. Is it credibility, accuracy, % of the methodology that is empirical? Something else? If it is the % of the methodology/justification that is empirical, then show the steps where you came to that rating. I don't think that's correct regarding science. If it is accuracy, what FSK determines the accuracy of other FSKs. If it is something else, what is it?

FDP? his knowledge is too shallow and thinking too naive to deal with complex moral issues.

Yes, yes, we're all stupid, ignorant and philosophical gnats. Blah, blah. Though it wasn't a complex moral issue that I was writing about. It was the coming up with numbers issue. So, his shallowness on complex moral issues is neither here nor there.

Consider the possibility that 1) you might not be being as clear as you could be 2) my asking questions could help you explain things in a clearer way.

My suggestion would be to make it clear what the criterion point is. How you decided on the standard. What the criterion is. Usually we are dealing with success rates. So, how do you measure that?

If you are using science to decide the success rate of science, is that biased?
We all know that consensus opinions shift, how to we come up with numbers to include this possibility? And so on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In indexing and setting standards, first we take something fixed

Science is fixed? In what sense. (I mean, I know what you meant. But really science is not fixed in the way other kinds of (things used as) standards are. It's a shifting set of processes with different methodologies and these change over time and have changed over time.
........

The whole of the above post is a total misunderstanding of my points.

Perhaps analogies and examples will help regarding using the credibility and objectivity as THE STANDARD all other FSKs are compared and rated upon.

• Here is the games performance analogy again;
  Let say in computer-GAME ABC, points scores are given for the gamers' performance and average is computed on a daily, monthly, yearly basis.
  There are about 100,000 members playing Computer-Game ABC.
  So far, the best consistent performer is gamer-X with the highest average score of 1000 points.
  
  The task now is to assess the performance ability of each individual gamer's performance.
  Of course, each gamer will have an average score and one can rank these average scores but such a comparison is not very effective to facilitates improvements and progress.
  
  To facilitate improvements and progress [or just simple comparison] it would be more effective to use some sort of STANDARD as a guide for improvements and progress.
  
  In this case, we will use gamer-X average score of 1000 [100%] and fixed it as a STANDARD for as long as it is useful. So, this fixed-standard of 100% is not absolute but can be changed when circumstances change.
  
  To get an idea of the competence of all the gamers of Game-ABC we merely divide their average score by 1000.
  If Y score is 10 then his competency in that Game is 0.01%.
  If Z score is 200 then his competency rating in that Game is 20%.
  If Q score is 500 then his competency rating in that Game is 50%.
  
  If Y, Z and Q wants to improve and progress, one of the best approach is to understand the variables with X-FSK to understand how he is able to achieve an average of 1000.
  The critical variables may be the hours he spent on practicing, his IQ, his motor skills, his knowledge of shortcuts, tricks, etc.
  If anyone or coach were to make improvements, he will have to understand the individual performance FSK of his trainees.
  If IQ is the critical variable, and if X's IQ is 150 while Y's IQ is 100, Y is not likely to be able to improve and progress to the X's average level of performance. Maybe, if all other variables are the same, the most Y can improve to is 66.67% of X's performance.
  
  The point above is the more effective factor to compare the competence of all gamers in Game-ABC is,
  1. Establish a STANDARD performance that is fixed for a certain period.
  2. Get an idea of the FSK of that STANDARD on why it is of the highest performer that specific period considered.
  3. Compare the variables of the FSK of each individual gamer to understand the difference within each FSK to determine the performance GAP.
  
  From the above, the main point is we will understand how
  1. Gamer-X with Game-ABC-FSK-X achieves a 1000 point score and taken as the STANDARD and given the 100% tag as a reference and guide.
  and why
  2. Gamer-Y with Game-ABC-FSK-Y achieve a 10% [0.01%] rating as contrasted by X's FSK at 100% as the STANDARD.

There is no pulling out of numbers.
To make an effective comparison the STANDARD is to be taken at fixed 100% as a convenience for computation or fixed at any number [99.99 etc.] which must not be changed arbitrary within the relevant period.
When this STANDARD is compared to other variables it will generate a variation of scores.

The above is statistics 101.
It is unfortunate for me to have to go to that length of communicate this simple basic of statistics.

For anyone interested,
Is the above well understood?

I need confirmation, else it is no point me explaining the above to
why the Scientific FSK is rated at 100% credibility and Objectivity
while in the extreme contrast the theology-FSK is rated at 0.01% credibility and Objectivity.