Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated

[Iwannaplato]

We are now in a position to see why the morally unconcerned person, the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, probably suffers a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.

As Boyd had stated above, the deficiency in moral reasoning is due to a a perceptual deficit.

As such, you, Pete and Sculptor has low moral sense but I did not equate you all as psychopaths.

The problem with the Boyd as an argument from you in relation to others is what does Boyd mean by motivationally irrelevant. Because what that sounds like is someone who doesn't give shit. Which is not the same thing as having a antirealist metaethical position.

So what does he mean by that phrase?

And given that he thinks morals come from our desires and wants, why not simply call them those things? And given that you see us changing human nature so what we are more advanced morally, on what grounds can you justify that if morals are grounded and justified on wants and desires as Boyd does? How could you decide it is moral to go against human nature, if you agree with Boyd's naturalistic explanation of and justification of moral facts?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well you've got to acknowledge the bravado in assigning 3 significant digits to an essentially subjective opinion. I don't necessarily profoundly disagree with the opinion, but the criteria for quantifying the situation numerically is arbitrary.

It is not arbitrary.

Yeah it is. It's also meaningless which is true of the effort and the numerals alike.

[FlashDangerpants]

We are now in a position to see why the morally unconcerned person, the person for whom moral facts are motivationally irrelevant, probably suffers a cognitive deficit with respect to moral reasoning.

As Boyd had stated above, the deficiency in moral reasoning is due to a a perceptual deficit.

As such, you, Pete and Sculptor has low moral sense but I did not equate you all as psychopaths.

The problem with the Boyd as an argument from you in relation to others is what does Boyd mean by motivationally irrelevant. Because what that sounds like is someone who doesn't give shit. Which is not the same thing as having a antirealist metaethical position.

Wow, you didn't even have to read the paper once to pick up on that misunderstanding.

[Iwannaplato]

*Relying on indirect evidences and mathematical models for theorizing and speculation would not be "at their best".

OK, but the interesting thing here is that you are labelling something indirect evidence. How can an antirealist consider indirect evidence at all? Why is it called evidence by you?

Most fields of inquiry/science rely on indirect evidence. Evidence gained via devices not direct observation. Effects of things not directly experienced, that is.

To call that evidence is realism. Because it means that we are postulating the existence of things we do not experience, but we experience the effects of them (in the realist model).

So, first, what is the considered direct evidence and where is the boundary to what is considered indirect evidence.
Then why would anything be call indirect evidence by an antirealist?

[Veritas Aequitas]

*Relying on indirect evidences and mathematical models for theorizing and speculation would not be "at their best".

OK, but the interesting thing here is that you are labelling something indirect evidence. How can an antirealist consider indirect evidence at all? Why is it called evidence by you?

Most fields of inquiry/science rely on indirect evidence. Evidence gained via devices not direct observation. Effects of things not directly experienced, that is.

To call that evidence is realism. Because it means that we are postulating the existence of things we do not experience, but we experience the effects of them (in the realist model).

So, first, what is the considered direct evidence and where is the boundary to what is considered indirect evidence.
Then why would anything be call indirect evidence by an antirealist?

Indirect evidence in the above case refer to FSKs that rely on evidence [indirectly] from other FSKs rather than generating or dealing with evidence directly from their own specific FSK.
In contrast, the chemistry FSK mainly derived its evidences from within the chemistry FSK itself and thus at their best, it would have a high degree of credibility. [as rated]

Say, a legal FSK that generate its own evidence in a court case from witnesses etc. but it also rely on evidence indirectly which are endorsed by the science-biology FSK or science-chemistry FSK.
Because it is relying on evidence say DNA which is a science-biology FSK, its best cannot be equivalent to that of the science-biology FSK's credibility.

[Iwannaplato]

Indirect evidence in the above case refer to FSKs that rely on evidence [indirectly] from other FSKs rather than generating or dealing with evidence directly from their own specific FSK.

So you consider all evidence in astronomy, chemistry and physics direct evidence, even though much of it has to do with observations of effects and not the things themselves?

In contrast, the chemistry FSK mainly derived its evidences from within the chemistry FSK itself and thus at their best, it would have a high degree of credibility. [as rated]

But in chemistry, atoms and molecular bonding are never directly observed. Most of the nouns in chemistry can only be postulated via observation of effects. They posit objects from those observations of effects.

It's indirect evidence but you accept it. The chemists sure as hell are realists. They are using nouns for the things they posit via deduction, through the observation of effects. What they would call effects. The whole point of their enterprise is to posit the existence of things and processes that cannot be directly experienced. That is part of the FSK. Now of course you can say they are wrong, but then that's YOUR fsk. It's not the chemistry FSK, which has generated nouns for all sorts of non-experiencable things and processes. Stuff we can only see the effects of and which chemists CONSIDER the effects of. IOW the effects of real things out there and in there that we cannot directly experience. They don't think it's merely a convenient way of talking.

So, when you mention the chemistry FSK but have it as non-realist, it is actually VA's chemistry FSK, which would now be, given your definitions, indirect evidence, because like the astrologer, you are using other people's FSK to inform your FSK.

2) and they why is an astrologer who could have a telescope, dealing with indirect evidence. Back in the past there wasn't a clear separation between astrologers and astronomers. The evidence that the planets are moving around is not direct in astronomy and indirect in astrology. That's not the difference. They don't even need astronomers to track the apparant movements of planets, certainly not the visible to the eyes ones, and they can have telescopes for the others.

Not that that is the issue I want to focus on but it just seems so arbritrary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect evidence in the above case refer to FSKs that rely on evidence [indirectly] from other FSKs rather than generating or dealing with evidence directly from their own specific FSK.

So you consider all evidence in astronomy, chemistry and physics direct evidence, even though much of it has to do with observations of effects and not the things themselves?

I think the term I had used, i.e. direct or indirect has led to the confusion.

My intent is;
1. Evidence [whatever the method used] that is self-generated from the FSK itself.
2. Evidence that is borrowed or adopted from another FSK.

Thus the point is;
The science -Physics, Chemistry & Biology generate their own evidence to form their conclusion. [there are borrowing between them but that is insignificant].
As such, the credibility of the FSK as rated is on the higher side.

Where other FSKs that do not generate their own evidence but rely on facts from the Physics, Chemistry & Biology Facts, then their the credibility of the FSK [plus other factors] cannot be as high as those of the natural Science FSK.

For example in the past Astrology did rely on their own observations, but at present their observations are reinforced with facts from science-physics-Cosmology.
In this sense, the current reliance thus increase their credibility over the past mere observations via the telescope but overall the astrological FSK's credibility is very low in the association of the planetary movements with human personalities and behaviors.

So the point is,
as long as a FSK borrow from another FSK [say the scientific FSK - the standard], their credibility is reduced in that sense in contrast to the scientific FSK.
But how far the credibility of an FSK is reduced from the standard will depend how much reliance they are placing on the scientific FSK.

As I had proposed, the majority of the critical inputs into my morality-proper FSK [MPF] will be from the scientific FSK.
As such, the credibility of my MPF will not be very far from the scientific standard compared to the theological FSK which is based critically on blind-faith.

My point,
forget about direct or indirect evidence, rather it should be;
1. Evidence [whatever the method used] that is self-generated from the FSK itself.
2. Evidence that is borrowed or adopted from other FSKs.

Thus the question is whether a FSK at its best operation;
-generate its own evidence to form conclusion or
-borrow evidence from another FSK then combine its own to make it own conclusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why is the namespace for Cosmology "science-physics-Cosmology" but that for the morality-proper isn't "science-<what actually goes here?>-morality". The naming convention is important for placing cosmology into the science hiearchy that VA likes to fantasise about. It should be that way for any other FSK thing that is supposedly deriving its credibcility from imported science data.

[Will Bouwman]

Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages. There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

As Thomas Kuhn recognised, it doesn't even work for short lists applied to the field you think is the most reliable:

And there I assume he is talking about competing versions of the answer to the same question?

Well, at the risk of doing some actual philosophy: sorta. A question like why do apples fall on enlightenment physicist's heads can be answered according to different paradigms: because warped spacetime, or because gravitons, for example. Victoria and Albert doesn't appreciate that science is wildly unreliable when it comes to philosophical models. What makes it reliable is the measurement of phenomena. So if he wants to use reliable science as a model, he could do some empirical investigating and perhaps discover that some people get quite cross if they are lied to. He could then hypothesise why this might be so, call it an FSK and live a perfectly contented existence believing something that is consistent with the facts, but isn't actually true. Happens a lot, dontcha know?

I would imagine that if the question is "how many wives did Henry VIII have?" he would think it odd to need to look up whether zoology or electro-chemistry are the more credible knowledge magesteria in comparison to history before selecting which end of the library to walk to.

Yes, I imagine he would.

[Will Bouwman]

tell me what other fields of knowledge are more credible, reliable and objective than those from the scientific FSK?

Well, to pinch an example, how many wives do yo think Henry VIII had?

[Veritas Aequitas]

tell me what other fields of knowledge are more credible, reliable and objective than those from the scientific FSK?

Well, to pinch an example, how many wives do yo think Henry VIII had?

What is fact? in [] = mine

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. [qualified to a FSK]
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. [emerged from the scientific FSK]

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic [FSK] fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical [FSK] fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical [FSK] facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

My answer to "how many wives do yo think Henry VIII had"
must be confined to a specific human-based historical-FSK.
Because a historical fact cannot be tested repeatability as with the scientific FSK [at its best], a historical FSK [at its best] cannot have a higher credibility than that of the scientific FSK.

The credibility of the answer that historically Henry VIII had 6 [not 8] wives will also depend on the credibility of the specific human-based historical FSK say from [source: ChatGpt];

• British Library: The British Library is a reputable institution that houses a vast collection of historical documents, including manuscripts and records from the Tudor period. Their collection is a valuable resource for verifying historical information.
  
  National Archives (UK): The National Archives in the UK is another authoritative source for historical records. They hold a wide range of documents, including those related to the reign of Henry VIII and his marriages.
  
  Historical Societies: Organizations such as The Royal Historical Society or The Tudor Society are dedicated to the study and preservation of historical records. Scholars and researchers associated with these societies often contribute to the understanding of historical events.
  
  Academic Journals: Peer-reviewed academic journals in history, such as The Journal of British Studies or The English Historical Review, often publish research articles based on rigorous analysis of historical evidence. These can be good sources to verify historical facts.
  
  Biographies and History Books: Reputable biographies of Henry VIII written by well-regarded historians can provide a comprehensive and well-researched account of his life, including details about his marriages.

Each of the above specific human-based historical FSK will have their own Framework and System plus methodologies and process that will give them their relative credibility.

The historical FSK in general cannot be more credible or even have near credibility to the scientific FSK due to the high degree of subjectivity; it is often said, his-story is written by victors.

eta:
6 [not 8] wives

[Will Bouwman]

My answer to "how many wives do yo think Henry VIII had"
must be confined to a specific human-based historical-FSK.

You like numbers. How many human-based historical-FSKs could accommodate the claim that Henry VIII had six wives? Which is the most credible? How many human based scientific-FSKs can account for gravity? How do you decide which is the most credible?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My answer to "how many wives do yo think Henry VIII had"
must be confined to a specific human-based historical-FSK.

You like numbers. How many human-based historical-FSKs could accommodate the claim that Henry VIII had six wives? Which is the most credible?
How many human based scientific-FSKs can account for gravity? How do you decide which is the most credible?

The number of wives Henry VIII had can be answered by as many human-based historical-FSKs as on can come up with, But,
as stated above;

The credibility of the answer that historically Henry VIII had 6 [not 8] wives will depend on the credibility of the specific human-based historical FSK say from [source: ChatGpt];

I have also asserted, at present the most credible human-based scientific-FSKs [at its best] are those of the natural sciences.
The science-physics-FSK would be the more credible FSK to deal with the case of gravity - obviously not that of biology, chemistry, legal, economic FSK and so on.
Within science-physics-FSK we have the more precise and credible sub-FSK to deal with gravity, i.e. Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum.

How do you decide which is the most credible?

This is explained in the OP.
viewtopic.php?p=676435#p676435

First we established why the Scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

then we use the Scientific FSK as the STANDARD to rate all other FSK as done in this thread.

[Iwannaplato]

then we use the Scientific FSK as the STANDARD to rate all other FSK as done in this thread.

But it is not the FSK that decided science was the standard. So, there is a kind of top FSK which is not science and does not use scientific methodology (as a whole) it does something else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

then we use the Scientific FSK as the STANDARD to rate all other FSK as done in this thread.

But it is not the FSK that decided science was the standard. So, there is a kind of top FSK which is not science and does not use scientific methodology (as a whole) it does something else.

You got too carried away with the term 'FSK'.

A FSK is a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

We use some sort of Quantifying Technique, methods and tools to determine credibility of 'Framework and System' of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
Because it is some sort of Quantifying Technique i.e. a tool, I would not term it as a FSK per se.

In this case, there is the question of the efficiency of these sort of tools or techniques.
Are there better techniques or tools than the ones I used in the OP.


Note: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods or Tools

Quantitative research is a research strategy that focuses on quantifying the collection and analysis of data.[1] It is formed from a deductive approach where emphasis is placed on the testing of theory, shaped by empiricist and positivist philosophies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research