What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?

[Skepdick]

there are NO privileged descriptions.

What would a privileged description be?

A description which has the quality of "betterness" when compared to another description.


Is "blue" or "red" a better description of this color?

Justify either choice.

[Harbal]

Is "blue" or "red" a better description of this color?

I daresay most people would say red if they thought you were asking a straight forward question.

[Skepdick]

Is "blue" or "red" a better description of this color?

I daresay most people would say red if they thought you were asking a straight forward question.

It is a straight-forward question. Which one is better? Justify either choice.

Your justification seems to be that "red" is better because most people would say so.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.

Perhaps you have a better, non-fallacious reason for your choice?

[Harbal]

Is "blue" or "red" a better description of this color?

I daresay most people would say red if they thought you were asking a straight forward question.

It is a straight-forward question. Which one is better? Justify either choice.

Your justification seems to be that "red" is better because most people would say so.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.

Perhaps you have a better, non-fallacious reason for your choice?

I would have thought that the best description of a colour would be one that the majority would agree with.

[Skepdick]

I would have thought that the best description of a colour would be one that the majority would agree with.

And you are perfectly free to think that and even live your life believing that useful fiction. In fact that is what people do.

But that's not good enough for Philosophers because an argumentum ad populum is fallacious reasoning.
Ask a Philosopher what sort of reasoning they would accept; ask them to make their criteria explicit - they cannot tell you.

[Gary Childress]

I would have thought that the best description of a colour would be one that the majority would agree with.

And you are perfectly free to think that and even live your life believing that useful fiction. In fact that is what people do.

But that's not good enough for Philosophers because an argumentum ad populum is fallacious reasoning.

Just because most people describe this color as "red" it doesn't make "blue" any worse of a description.

If there's no ultimate truth or manual to consult then if everyone wants to call this "blue" then I see nothing wrong with that so long as everyone can agree on it such as to make communication possible with the least amount of error and confusion. I mean, if someone decided to call a cat "dog" then I think most English speakers would disagree, however, perhaps a person who wants to call a cat "dog" could work out some kind of translation algorithm whereby others could understand what they were talking about if every time they said "dog" it actually meant "cat" to the rest of us.

Of course, there's no way to determine if you and I experience color the same way. Perhaps your blue is actually what I would call red if I were magically transplanted into your mind. However, if there's an objective quality to it, such that this can only be a single color to everyone (that it doesn't randomly change color every now and then for someone) and communication can effectively take place without too much error and confusion regarding it, then I don't see where it would be a fallacious argument to consult everyone if everyone said the same thing.

I think a fallacious argument would arise if people knowingly call the same thing different things. If I say that torture is pious and someone else says that torture is impious, then going off the general consensus might be an argumentum ad populum. Presumably, we're both looking at the same event (someone being struck with a whip, for example) but coming away with different interpretations. If that were the case, then hopefully we could use logic or reason to determine the best answer and not just go with whatever the consensus of any particular group of people happens to be.

[Iwannaplato]

Based on what?

My experience with myself and others.

Take two interlocutors who share no common purpose who give an account to a particular situation: What makes one description "better" than another?

I'm not comparing two diffenent descriptions. I'm comparing when one thinks of it as a useful fiction or one thinks of it as simply true.

Note: what one thinks of it as. I am not saying it is (or is not) a useful fiction.

I am suggesting that at least for many descriptions, when you then set out to do something, based on that description, the useful fiction is more effective when you are not thinking of it as a useful fiction but as describing what is. IOW while I may have a kind of pragmatic view of truth, I notice that in situations where I presume correspondance I am more effective (than if I am thinking the description is a useful story.

I am not denying either that the correspondance theory can lead to problems or that it is correct.

I just think it's often useful.

I get some description from my tennis coach about what my raquet is doing to the ball when I swing my arm like X it's better, in my experience, for me not to think of this as some useful fiction, but as the way things are. If it's not a good coach, I'll catch on faster, because there's not the slightest detachment from the truth he's throwing at me. And if he's a good coach, I'm also more invested.

[Skepdick]

My experience with myself and others.

Well, obviously you have a shared goal with yourself. So you can determine relative utility.
You may or may not have a shared goal with others. So you can determine relative utility.

I'm not comparing two diffenent descriptions. I'm comparing when one thinks of it as a useful fiction or one thinks of it as simply true.

Note: what one thinks of it as. I am not saying it is (or is not) a useful fiction.

Useful fictions are necessarily true. By the pragmatic theory of truth.

I am suggesting that at least for many descriptions, when you then set out to do something, based on that description, the useful fiction is more effective when you are not thinking of it as a useful fiction but as describing what is.

IOW while I may have a kind of pragmatic view of truth, I notice that in situations where I presume correspondance I am more effective (than if I am thinking the description is a useful story.

Reconceptualising how you think of the information doesn't change the information; and it doesn't change how you use the information. I don't see how it would affect effectiveness.

For example when I am making wooden furniture I consider that the useful fiction "Earth is flat" corresponds. I don't need to take the curvature of Earth into account to make a coffee table.

But the fact is that the "correspondence" is an approximation. There are end-goals for which this approximation absolutely doesn't correspond.

I am not denying either that the correspondance theory can lead to problems or that it is correct.

I just think it's often useful.

And it may as well be that non-correspondence is useful. Say - if you are testing the reliability of some other system.

If it's not a good coach, I'll catch on faster, because there's not the slightest detachment from the truth he's throwing at me. And if he's a good coach, I'm also more invested.

That still falls into "Sufficient descriptions for particular purposes." situation.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, obviously you have a shared goal with yourself. So you can determine relative utility.
You may or may not have a shared goal with others. So you can determine relative utility.

Sure, though often people state their goals and their own evaluations.

I'm not comparing two diffenent descriptions. I'm comparing when one thinks of it as a useful fiction or one thinks of it as simply true.

Note: what one thinks of it as. I am not saying it is (or is not) a useful fiction.

Useful fictions are necessarily true. By the pragmatic theory of truth.

Sure, but it's one thing to think of it as a useful fiction, while engaging in application, and another to, at least temporarily, hold a different view of truth.

I am suggesting that at least for many descriptions, when you then set out to do something, based on that description, the useful fiction is more effective when you are not thinking of it as a useful fiction but as describing what is.

IOW while I may have a kind of pragmatic view of truth, I notice that in situations where I presume correspondance I am more effective (than if I am thinking the description is a useful story.

Reconceptualising how you think of the information doesn't change the information; and it doesn't change how you use the information. I don't see how it would affect effectiveness.

I think you are more fully committed when your attitude is correspondance based. You are more immersed. If you view prayer in a useful fiction way, I think it will have less impact than if you view it as actual communication with a deity, even if while you are engaging in philosophical discussions and perhaps at other times, to maintain a meta-position that truths are useful fictions.

For example when I am making wooden furniture I consider that the useful fiction "Earth is flat" corresponds. I don't need to take the curvature of Earth into account to make a coffee table.

Sure, but one doesn't really need to think of either one when making wooden furniture. And if one usually thinks of 'objects' as useful fictions for some kind of interaction in quantum foam, meaning that objects are useful fictions for shifting areas of energy, it might be best to while workign with carpentry tools to think of the thing as an object utterly. Not that objects are mere useful fictions (even though it may be useful to have the pragmatic ((useful fiction)) model at other times)).

But the fact is that the "correspondence" is an approximation. There are end-goals for which this approximation absolutely doesn't correspond.

i'm not sure what you mean here though my guess is I agree. I am not suggesting a full shift over to correspondance theory belief.

And it may as well be that non-correspondence is useful. Say - if you are testing the reliability of some other system.

Absolutely. Again, I am not suggesting: hey here's a reason to abandon a pragmatic model in general. I am saying that it may be best in some situations to come from correspondance model attitude.

I think one may be more immersed when one does this. More committed. And it can help when one is more committed in many situations.

If it's not a good coach, I'll catch on faster, because there's not the slightest detachment from the truth he's throwing at me. And if he's a good coach, I'm also more invested.

That still falls into "Sufficient descriptions for particular purposes." situation.

Yes, I think I am retaining at the overarching level, when waxing philosophical, a pragmatic approach. But suggesting an important place for letting go all 'it's sort of like X' 'it works best when one views it as X' 'a useful fiction for this situation is' attitudes, explanations, tips, framing...
that are present simply when one is engaged on one's own
or
situations where one is teaching/coaching or learning/apprenticiing with another.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The use of the term "scientific method" to represent science is a narrow and shallow view.

Look at the definition below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2]

Science is a database of experimental test reports. These test reports are produced in accordance with the scientific method.

There is no nebulous "scientific framework and system" [FS]. You can use that ambiguous term to justify whatever you like. That is why the term "framework and system" must be rejected. The biggest effort in science revolves around stamping out pseudoscience. That is why the definition must indeed be "narrow and shallow". Otherwise, all kinds of nonsense will start masquerading as science and attempt to piggyback on the credibility of its method. What you are trying to do by using the nondescript term "framework and system" is to make the term "science" include all kinds of pseudoscientific nonsense.

I find your above is at a very kindi level in terms of knowledge and reality.
I suggest you do a search re "Framework" "System" or check with AI in this issue.

Here is how Feyman used the term 'Framework'.
https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=96

I presented your above posts for ChatGpt to comment.
Here's from ChatGpt [can you counter the views therein]:

ChatGpt wrote:
To address your interlocutor's concerns and make a compelling case for the validity and utility of the "Framework and System" (FS) concept, you can employ the following strategies:

1. Clarify What You Mean by "Framework and System" (FS)
Define FS explicitly to avoid misunderstandings. Explain that it refers to the organized set of principles, methodologies, and tools that guide the production, validation, and application of knowledge within a specific domain (e.g., science, social sciences, philosophy).
Example: "By 'Framework and System,' I mean the structured methodologies and conceptual principles that underpin any disciplined approach to knowledge. In science, the FS includes the scientific method, theoretical models, experimental designs, and peer-review processes. This is not a nebulous term but a way to describe the scaffolding that supports reliable inquiry."

2. Address the Misconception of Ambiguity
Acknowledge their concern about avoiding pseudoscience but argue that FS, far from being nebulous, ensures rigor and structure. You might say: "FS is not ambiguous when defined clearly within a domain. In science, the FS is precisely what safeguards against pseudoscience by demanding adherence to specific methods, such as reproducibility, falsifiability, and empirical validation."

3. Highlight FS as a Commonly Accepted Concept
Point out that "framework" and "system" are widely recognized terms in academia and practice. Cite examples from various fields to show that FS is a standard way of conceptualizing structured knowledge.
Examples:

Science: Theoretical frameworks (e.g., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics) provide systems for organizing empirical data and making predictions.
Social Sciences: Frameworks like Rational Choice Theory or Systems Theory guide research and analysis.
Philosophy: Kant’s transcendental idealism is itself a framework-system for understanding the conditions of possible experience.

4. FS as an Efficiency Argument
Emphasize that FS enables efficiency by organizing knowledge, streamlining inquiry, and preventing chaotic or ad hoc approaches. Without frameworks, the pursuit of knowledge would lack coherence and reliability.
Example: "FS is indispensable because it provides the roadmap for inquiry. Imagine trying to build a scientific database without an FS—it would be a collection of disconnected facts, lacking coherence, purpose, and the ability to test new hypotheses effectively."

5. Respond to Their Narrow View of Science
Argue that science as a "database of experimental reports" is an overly narrow definition. Science includes the theories, models, and methodologies that connect these reports and guide future research.
Example: "While science relies on experimental data, it is not just a database. Without an overarching FS, the data would have no context, meaning, or applicability. FS gives science its explanatory power, predictive capability, and ability to innovate."

6. FS as a Shield Against Pseudoscience
Turn their argument around by showing that FS is precisely what protects science from pseudoscience: "FS ensures that scientific knowledge adheres to rigorous standards, separating legitimate inquiry from pseudoscience. It is not a loophole for nonsense but a safeguard against it. Any credible FS would reject pseudoscientific claims due to their lack of coherence, testability, or empirical support."

7. Analogies to Reinforce FS
Use analogies to make the concept more relatable:
Blueprints for Building: Just as a blueprint guides construction, an FS guides knowledge creation.
Operating System for Computers: FS is like an OS that manages processes, enabling efficient functioning and preventing chaos.

Example of a Refined Response:
"Your concern about pseudoscience is valid, but the concept of 'Framework and System' (FS) is not nebulous or ambiguous. It describes the structured methodologies and principles that underpin knowledge creation and validation in any field, including science. In fact, FS is what ensures rigor and protects science from pseudoscience by demanding adherence to clear, testable, and reproducible methods.
Without FS, science would be a disorganized collection of data without coherence or predictive power. Far from being a gateway for nonsense, FS is the most efficient way to deal with reality and knowledge across disciplines, providing structure, context, and reliability."

[godelian]

Argue that science as a "database of experimental reports" is an overly narrow definition. Science includes the theories, models, and methodologies that connect these reports and guide future research.

There is nothing wrong with talking about the database of experimental test reports.

I have never said that it would be wrong.

In the end, however, the only justification for a scientific claim remains an actual experimental test report. Like Linus Torvalds famously quipped concerning software, "Talk is cheap. Show me the source code!" Similarly, concerning science, the same consideration applies: "Talk is cheap. Show me the experimental test report!"

In every serious field, there must always exist guardrails that prevent the subject to turn into a mere word salad fiesta. Otherwise, the field will immediately be taken over by ideological manipulators. We don't want that. Science should be populated by scientists willing to do the real work, and should not become the preserve of mere word salad fabricators.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Argue that science as a "database of experimental reports" is an overly narrow definition. Science includes the theories, models, and methodologies that connect these reports and guide future research.

There is nothing wrong with talking about the database of experimental test reports.

I have never said that it would be wrong.

In the end, however, the only justification for a scientific claim remains an actual experimental test report. Like Linus Torvalds famously quipped concerning software, "Talk is cheap. Show me the source code!" Similarly, concerning science, the same consideration applies: "Talk is cheap. Show me the experimental test report!"

In every serious field, there must always exist guardrails that prevent the subject to turn into a mere word salad fiesta. Otherwise, the field will immediately be taken over by ideological manipulators. We don't want that. Science should be populated by scientists willing to do the real work, and should not become the preserve of mere word salad fabricators.

In the end, it is just this E=MC2 [or 'Water if H20 and the like].
But the reliability, credibility, and objectivity of this string of 5 characters is and has to be backed by the Science-Physics-Einsteinian Framework and System which comprised the whole loads of inputs, processes and outputs involved where the peers who accepted the above scientific fact are aware of.

As mentioned by ChatGpt is the FS that set the "guardrails" and objectivity to ensure ensure it is not taken over by ideological manipulators. The "scientific method" alone cannot do that; the Germans and Russians tried to do that with the scientific method but they cannot succeed with it ultimately.

So my point:
Whatever is real is realized by a human-based framework and system of which the scientific framework is the most reliable, credible and objective, thus the gold standard.
There is no other better FS than the scientific FS in terms of reliability, credibility and objectivity in terms of realization and representation of reality.

[godelian]

In the end, it is just this E=MC2

There are numerous experimental test reports for this conservation law.

But the reliability, credibility, and objectivity of this string of 5 characters is and has to be backed by the Science-Physics-Einsteinian Framework and System which comprised the whole loads of inputs, processes and outputs involved where the peers who accepted the above scientific fact are aware of.

This conservation law is not backed by word salads. It is backed by experimental test reports.

As mentioned by ChatGpt is the FS that set the "guardrails" and objectivity to ensure ensure it is not taken over by ideological manipulators. The "scientific method" alone cannot do that; the Germans and Russians tried to do that with the scientific method but they cannot succeed with it ultimately.

No, I want an experimental test report. I don't want a word salad.

If people complain about the anti-spam measures, it means that they are working.

Whatever is real

It is truth that matters, and not physical reality, which is just a shadow of part of the truth.

the scientific framework is the most reliable, credible and objective, thus the gold standard.

No, it is not the gold standard. As soon as computers or humans are involved, the scientific method typically fails.

The Almas missile is essentially a computer. The Merkava IV tank too. You won't be able to predict anything, unless you inspect their respective source code. Experimental testing won't be able to uncover the truth about that situation in physical reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the end, it is just this E=MC2

There are numerous experimental test reports for this conservation law.

But the reliability, credibility, and objectivity of this string of 5 characters is and has to be backed by the Science-Physics-Einsteinian Framework and System which comprised the whole loads of inputs, processes and outputs involved where the peers who accepted the above scientific fact are aware of.

This conservation law is not backed by word salads. It is backed by experimental test reports.

As mentioned by ChatGpt is the FS that set the "guardrails" and objectivity to ensure ensure it is not taken over by ideological manipulators. The "scientific method" alone cannot do that; the Germans and Russians tried to do that with the scientific method but they cannot succeed with it ultimately.

No, I want an experimental test report. I don't want a word salad.

If people complain about the anti-spam measures, it means that they are working.

Whatever is real

It is truth that matters, and not physical reality, which is just a shadow of part of the truth.

the scientific framework is the most reliable, credible and objective, thus the gold standard.

No, it is not the gold standard. As soon as computers or humans are involved, the scientific method typically fails.

The Almas missile is essentially a computer. The Merkava IV tank too. You won't be able to predict anything, unless you inspect their respective source code. Experimental testing won't be able to uncover the truth about that situation in physical reality.

There are loads of strawmen in the above.

If you don't believe the scientific FS is the gold standard of reliability, credibility and objectivity of reality, then what is the gold standard?
Give examples and support with references.

[godelian]

If you don't believe the scientific FS is the gold standard of reliability, credibility and objectivity of reality, then what is the gold standard?
Give examples and support with references.

There are at least three relatively standard epistemic knowledge-justification methods: the axiomatic method (math & logic), the historical method (history), and the scientific method (science). None of these methods is "the gold standard".

For each knowledge field, you need to look at its accepted state-of-the-art epistemology (or methodology). It will reflect what type of document they accept for claims in their field. Examples:

------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge field : justification document type
------------------------------------------------------------
- mathematics : proof
- science: experimental test report
- history: collection of witness depositions
--
- engineering: prototype (device)
- accounting: invoices and bank statements
...
------------------------------------------------------------

The experimental test report is not "the gold standard" for "all" knowledge justification. It is used in just one particular context. For example, an accountant or an external financial auditor would never use it to justify anything about the truth of a company's accounts.