Who is Right and Who is Wrong re Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no absolute facts, truths and knowledge of reality [all-there-is], without them being conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]

At the present the most credible FSK is the scientific FSK thus scientific facts. Note within the FSKs there are varying degrees of credibility depending on various factors, i.e. the more soundly tested and repeated 000s-of-times scientific facts are more credible than the current ones, the theoretical or the speculative.

As such there are accepted criteria on how scientific facts are credible or truth-worthy.
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

Based on the above, scientific facts and the scientific FSK should be the standard bearer all other claims of facts and truth should be compared against.
In this case we will give credible ratings to various types of scientific facts depending on their methodology and circumstances.
Say I can rate the fact, Water is H2O at 90/100 credibility, then I should rate the theoretical untested unrepeatable BB at say 49/100.
Note these are rough estimations but would not vary much for any one assessing it rationally.

Whatever others claimed as truth and facts from other FSKs should be contrasted the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.
Thus the legal truth that 'X is a convicted murder' based heavily on DNA evidence should be rated highly say at 75/00 which is more credible than of the scientific claims of the BB or Black Holes.

The claim God exists as real and fact by theists based a theistic FSK would be rated 0.000001/100 i.e. is an impossible and a non-starter in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.
God is an Impossibility as Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

So any one who claim their truths, facts or knowledge is right or real has contrast against the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.

How else would any one claim their truths, facts and knowledge is right or true other than the above approach?

[FlashDangerpants]

Thus the legal truth that 'X is a convicted murder' based heavily on DNA evidence should be rated highly say at 75/00 which is more credible than of the scientific claims of the BB or Black Holes.

Whether X has or has not been convicted of a given crime is either true or false. It's stupid to rate that at 75%.
If you are trying to estimate the reliability of the conviction, you are employing the fallacy of false precision with that number.

The claim God exists as real and fact by theists based a theistic FSK would be rated 0.000001/100 i.e. is an impossible and a non-starter in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

0.000001/100 is just another of those bullshit numbers that you like to wave around all the time.

God is an Impossibility as Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

That argument was shit, you got your ass handed to you by Immanuel Can which is just unforgiveable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the above I had presented the 'quantification' perspective which does not mean the qualitative perspective is not effective.

I believe there are pros and cons to either the quantitative or the qualitative methods or both be used in complementarity will depend on the context.

In the above I have used quantification in its respective context as a very rough guide which does not mean to be absolutely conclusive.

It is obvious a legal truth [depending on source and location] 'X is a convicted murder'] would be less credible than the most credible scientific facts, e.g. water is H20.
The point is a legal judgment is based on a group of jurors or one or a few judges and it is not subjected to testability nor repeatability.

As such if we rank the credibility of the scientific fact at say n/100 then the credibility of the legal judgment would be (n-x)/100.
Any rational person would be able accept this formula as explained above.
What is 'n' or 'x' will depend on the context and circumstances.

What is wrong with the above view?

[FlashDangerpants]

I believe there are pros and cons to either the quantitative or the qualitative methods

A fairly significant con for the quant method would be that it is bullshit because there are no quantities to measure.
So that's a problem right there.

In the above I have used quantification in its respective context as a very rough guide which does not mean to be absolutely conclusive.

It's not a rough guide, it's total nonsense.

It is obvious a legal truth [depending on source and location] 'X is a convicted murder'] would be less credible than the most credible scientific facts, e.g. water is H20.
The point is a legal judgment is based on a group of jurors or one or a few judges and it is not subjected to testability nor repeatability.

As such if we rank the credibility of the scientific fact at say n/100 then the credibility of the legal judgment would be (n-x)/100.
Any rational person would be able accept this formula as explained above.
What is 'n' or 'x' will depend on the context and circumstances.

What is wrong with the above view?

Your quant nonsense has reach absurd levels of bullshit when you use a stupid term sucbh as "the legal judgment would be (n-x)/100."
You've disappeared entirely up your own arse.

[Iwannaplato]

Thus the legal truth that 'X is a convicted murder' based heavily on DNA evidence should be rated highly say at 75/00 which is more credible than of the scientific claims of the BB or Black Holes.

So any one who claim their truths, facts or knowledge is right or real has contrast against the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.

So....
VA has made a claim.....

Thus the legal truth that 'X is a convicted murder' based heavily on DNA evidence should be rated highly say at 75/00 which is more credible than of the scientific claims of the BB or Black Holes.

He then says that all claims should be contrasted with the scientific FSK....

So any one who claim their truths, facts or knowledge is right or real has contrast against the scientific FSK as the standard and rated accordingly.

His claim, bolded above, is made in an as yet not identified FSK.
It is not a scientific conclusion. His conclusion about DNA evidence in a specific case being more certainly corret than claims about BB and BHs, is not a scientific conclusion - because we are comparing specific practical application of a DNA test in society, that is, not necessarily controlled conditions. So, he needs to identify his FSK for his claim, explain its methodology and then compare it to science's FSK.

I will be this is never done.

He may think that a particular application via technology of a scientifically discovered set of conclusions and facts is a scientific conclusion. But that is not correct. Different CSI teams, investigators, court cases, in various countries and subcultures with have different rates of success with the specific DNA testing they do. Bribery, sloppiness, damaged machinery, work culture, maintenance of devices, skills of particular technicians and so on all play roles.

So, he has used some non-scientific FSK to generate his claim. How do we compare this as yet unmentioned FSK with science? Why doesn't he do this?

Further he seems utterly confused about the research around BHs and BB, since this involves a diverse set of conclusions, many of them can be retested, over and over. I think what he means here are models.

[Atla]

the credibility of the legal judgment would be (n-x)/100.
...
What is wrong with the above view?

Pfft everyone knows it's cos(sqrt(n)-ln(x/2))/sin(100). You doing stone age philosophy or what?