Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since this point is raised frequently, here is a separate thread to address the issue;

I don't misunderstand your argument. It's just fallacious. Your FSRC theory provides no basis for assessing the credibility, reliability or objectivity of a practice and discourse that produces knowledge - and so for comparing discourses - because your first premise is that all knowledge is within an FSRC.

And this is circular, because whatever FSRC 'produces' the knowledge that an FSRC is credible, reliable, etc - can't be self-authenticating or self-authorising. There is no 'master' FSRC above the fray of competing FSRCs - no way to show that astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack.

Here is the mature view [from AI {wR}] to the above problem;

Escaping Circularity:

Here are approaches to avoid circularity:

Non-Circular Foundation: Introduce a meta-framework (outside any specific FSK) that establishes basic principles for evaluating FSKs. This meta-framework could include things like:

• Internal consistency: The FSK doesn't lead to contradictions within itself.
  Explanatory power: The FSK explains a wide range of phenomena.
  Predictive ability: The FSK allows for predictions that can be tested.
  Openness to revision: The FSK allows for new evidence to change its structure.

Break the Circle; Escape Clause: Your proposed escape clause of making "knowledge of the credibility of FSKs" an exception is a reasonable approach. This acknowledges a meta-level knowledge that sits outside the specific FSK being used. This exemption acknowledges that evaluating frameworks themselves requires a different kind of knowledge, one that is more metacognitive (thinking about thinking). This metacognitive knowledge could be based on principles of logic, consistency, evidence-based reasoning, and broad societal acceptance.

Bootstrapping: You can think of establishing the credibility of scientific FSK as a bootstrapping process. Initially, we might rely on simpler frameworks or common-sense observations to evaluate different FSKs. These simpler frameworks might not be perfect, but they can provide a starting point. As we build scientific knowledge, we can refine our criteria for judging FSKs based on evidence, consistency, predictive power, etc.

Convergence: Scientific progress often involves convergence of evidence from multiple frameworks. While individual FSKs might have limitations, the convergence of results across different approaches strengthens the overall credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK.

Levels of Analysis: Another way to escape circularity is to consider levels of analysis. You could argue that basic observation and logic can provide some foundational knowledge (e.g., "the sky is blue") that serves as a starting point for building FSKs. This basic knowledge wouldn't rely on a specific FSK itself.

Here's a revised approach:
Start with a Basic Framework: Begin with a simple, common-sense framework to evaluate different FSKs.
Scientific FSK Emerges: Through observation, experimentation, and refinement, a scientific FSK emerges that demonstrates its effectiveness in explaining and predicting phenomena.
Credibility Through Convergence: The scientific FSK gains further credibility when its results converge with evidence from other independent frameworks.
This approach avoids circularity by acknowledging a starting point outside the specific FSKs and then building credibility through a cumulative process.

Additionally:
Be transparent about the limitations of any FSK, including the scientific one. No framework is perfect, but some are demonstrably better than others at explaining specific phenomena.

Classical Logic Limitations:
Classical logic may not be the best tool for this situation. FSKs are complex systems, and classical logic struggles with fuzzy boundaries and nuanced relationships. Consider exploring:

Fuzzy Logic: Allows for degrees of truth, more accurately reflecting the complexities of FSK evaluation.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge and its justification, which goes beyond the formal rules of classical logic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 So your FSRC theory can't explain why the natural sciences are the 'gold standard' for providing knowledge of reality. Your theory undermines or contradicts that claim.

I have explained the gold standard is based on criteria accepted by rational basis.

It amounts to using a model to assess models for their relative objectivity. There's no way out here. How can we assess the objectivity of those generally accepted criteria?

Assessing the relative credibility and objectivity is a very common exercise within humanity.
There is a methodology, processes and a list of generally accepted criteria.
The generally accepted criteria are honed based on experience and consensus within rational agents iteratively and dialectically.
There is no need to use any models to assess generally accepted criteria formally.

I provided this link but you did not bother to read;
Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

• Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
  A Constitution - explicit or implied.
  Empirical evidence – direct/ secondary; weightage 0.75/1.00
  Scientific method
  Qualify assumptions & limitations
  Verifiability
  Ethical neutrality
  Systematic exploration
  Testability
  Falsifiability
  Reliability
  Precision
  Repeatability -[a sub of reliability]
  Accuracy - validity
  Abstractness
  Predictability/ predictive power
  Rely on scientific facts
  Peer review
  Rationality and critical thinking
  Internal consistency:
  Explanatory power
  Predictiveness / predictive power
  Paradigm shifts
  Tentativeness, provisional
  Theory construction and
  Hypothesis testing
  Intolerant of contradictory evidence
  Natural- scientific models, laws, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomena
  Natural or Metaphysical
  Systematic evidence approach
  Rigorous
  Purposive – clear goal in mind
  Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
  Operational definitions
  Uncertainty – certainty
  Logical arguments

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Where circularity is not an issue;
viewtopic.php?t=40839

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Method of Rating Credibility and Objectivity of FSK using rationally & generally accepted criteria with weights;
Methodology of Rating Objectivity of FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41096

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no circularity if we start with a set of rational criteria and setting a standard therefrom to compare all other FSKs in terms of credibility and objectivity.

No, you haven't. Deliberately or not, you dodge the point I'm making. And your appeal to an AI account of meta-level explanation is laughable. A 'meta' FSRC is just another FSRC, just as a meta-language is just another language. Have you come across RIRO?

This is a waste of time.

Nah, you are just ignorant and banking on traditional logic without understanding its limitations. You think traditional logic is God?

Explain to me why what AI proposed above is not reasonable nor feasible
Do you understand how standards are set without reference to any prior standards?
Long ago, what is the standard 'foot' was simply referenced from someone's foot without any justification why that foot is chosen as the standard.
It is the same for all existing standards.

So it is the same of the use of a set of rational criteria that is generally accepted as a basis to assess the credibility and objective of each FSRC, model, paradigm and the like.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

This is a waste of time.

It is at your discretion.
It is like you are complaining quantum physics is a waste of time because you cannot understand it.

You are just like theists who refuse to understand [not agree with] the views of non-theists who counter them.

It is a great psychological threat and very painful [need to go through a cold turkey] for you to even try to understand [not necessary agree with] my antirealist views. I am not expecting and hopefully you remain the same.

No, the reason why this is a waste of time is that you either don't understand, or can't afford to acknowledge, the fundamental problem with your theory.

It is up to you to argued my theory is fundamentally wrong.
But how could you when the basis of your argument against mine is grounded on an illusion?
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
So far you have not provided any convincing counter to my point.
Do you understand [not agree with] my point?

You say that there's no reality outside a model of reality - an 'FSRC'. But then you say we can assess and compare the objectivity of models by applying 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

As an anti-realist I am opposing your claim that there is a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

The principle is a relative comparison can be done with anything [objectivity, any variable] as long as a fixed standard [gold or otherwise] is set.
You deny this?
If I use your height as the standard of a human height, then the other >8 billion person's height can be compared to your height as the standard as a relative %.
Or if an average height of humans at present is determined that can be used as a standard; but note will anyone question how the average height is obtained? no .. it is simply accepted and assumed a rational methodology has been applied.

Note the controversial IQ which was accepted and applied by many earlier but lately the rational basis of its criteria has been questioned. I believe IQ is still use in some limited ways with awareness of its limitations.

But so far, there is nothing fishy in using a set of rational criteria to assess the credibility and objective of FSRCs and using the highest rated as the standard, i.e. which as determined is the scientific FSRC [implicitly or explicitly]. I have merely it more explicit.

Then you list those criteria and refer to a methodology. And the criteria and methodology are all realist, in that they assume there is a reality against which we can assess and compare our models. And you say the natural sciences come out tops as 'the gold standard'.

This is absolutely wrong to insist all those criteria are realists.
All those criteria are human-based they cannot be in realist term, i.e. independent of humans.
As I had stated, your insistence that there is an independent reality against which we can assess and compare is grounded on an illusion.
In the case you are mirroring [as condemned by Rorty] a model against an independent external reality.

And this is a contradiction: there's no reality outside a model (an 'FSRC'); but the objectivity of a model can be assessed against reality, using 'the generally accepted criteria any rational person would readily accept'.

Again your ideological claim of a reality outside the model is fatuous and groundless.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Now, I think you just can't handle this explanation. I think you're intellectually unable to do so. So you lash out with slurs against those of us who try to explain where you go wrong. And it's a waste of time.

I only lash out as a tit for tat, e.g. to FDP.
Those who attack me without an intellectually basis [e.g. FDP] is due their psychological desperations to soothe their existential crisis.

I prefer to discuss amicably and amenable, and is prepared to trash out the issue as long as it takes [it provide a leverage for me to learn more; btw, I hope you will not agree with me] in an intellectual and philosophical mode.
The only critique I had on you is your shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking which is intellectually related. This critique is not lashing out.

That is why I suggest it is critical you read the following;
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
to understand my fundamental [substance] principles which are similar therein,
but note, I do not agree with all the forms therein.
The related thread here;
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

It is a serious call, sacrifice some time and you will understand [not agree with] my position more clearly.
Please confirm you have read and understood [not agree with] it.

The related threads:
Relativism about Logic
Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism
Social Constructivism
Conceptual Relativism

Also give a summary of what you understand from the above.

You have not answered this critical question,
what methodology do you use to ascertain [objectively] the science is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity over astrology or creationism?
If not, your grandfather, mother, father, kin, teacher said so?
You are ignorant that you and the rest had used some sort of criteria and methodology implicitly which I had made explicit.

Also do you understand why you are so dogmatic with your narrow and shallow philosophical views?
Clue: evolutionary, history of Western Philosophy, analytic philosophy, Anglo-American ideology,

[Veritas Aequitas]

And if you reject that fsk then... anything goes. And all facts are conditioned on some fsk so there's no objective reason NOT to reject that fsk.

There is no rejection of FSK, reality and knowledge end with the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

What fsk did you base that on?

.. on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom which is based on the FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom based on FSK of human rationality, critical thinking and wisdom and ....

Avoiding Circularity in Assessing Objectivity of FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42003

[Iwannaplato]

There is no circularity if we start with a set of rational criteria and setting a standard therefrom to compare all other FSKs in terms of credibility and objectivity.

Who is this we? Not the hypothetical one, the one that led you to make your claims. And what FSERC are their positions conditioned on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no circularity if we start with a set of rational criteria and setting a standard therefrom to compare all other FSKs in terms of credibility and objectivity.

Who is this we? Not the hypothetical one, the one that led you to make your claims. And what FSERC are their positions conditioned on.

"We" refer to anyone who is of average intelligence, being rational, adopt critical thinking and has some degrees of wisdom.
We can start with all those who are qualified as 'scientists' within the scientific FSK and the like from outside the scientific FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no circularity if we start with a set of rational criteria and setting a standard therefrom to compare all other FSKs in terms of credibility and objectivity.

Who is this we? Not the hypothetical one, the one that led you to make your claims. And what FSERC are their positions conditioned on.

"We" refer to anyone who is of average intelligence, being rational, adopt critical thinking and has some degrees of wisdom.
We can start with all those who are qualified as 'scientists' within the scientific FSK and the like from outside the scientific FSK.

But that's not an FSERC. That's individuals deciding something.
As far as the scientists most of them are realists - I realize this is about the other thread(s) but it is worth noting over and over.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Who is this we? Not the hypothetical one, the one that led you to make your claims. And what FSERC are their positions conditioned on.

"We" refer to anyone who is of average intelligence, being rational, adopt critical thinking and has some degrees of wisdom.
We can start with all those who are qualified as 'scientists' within the scientific FSK and the like from outside the scientific FSK.

But that's not an FSERC. That's individuals deciding something.
As far as the scientists most of them are realists - I realize this is about the other thread(s) but it is worth noting over and over.

FSERC is a more nuanced concept of FSK or FSC.
We can ignore the FSER for this purpose and focus on the FSK or FSC.

"As far as the scientists most of them are realists..."
This is a false statement.
Scientists are considered 'realists' or 'antirealists' whereupon the philosophy of science and philosophy is taken into consideration.
This is common in Physics triggered when Quantum Physics was heavily debated.

VA to ChatGpt
I read the term 'realism' was a philosophical term introduced by Kant.
I don't think scientists in general give consideration to the term 'realism' at all on a philosophical perspective.

ChatGPT said:
Your critique is insightful and raises important points about the intersection of science and philosophy. Let me address your observations:

1. The Assumption of an External World
You’re correct that the assumption of an external world is intuitive and often implicit within the scientific framework and system. Scientists typically focus on empirical investigation, guided by the practical methodologies and principles of science, without necessarily engaging with the philosophical implications of realism or anti-realism.

2. Realism as a Philosophical Term and Kant’s Contribution
The term "realism" indeed has philosophical roots and predates Kant. However, Kant critically engaged with realism in a distinct way:

In response to rationalist and empiricist traditions, Kant introduced transcendental idealism, distinguishing between how things appear to us (phenomena) and things as they are in themselves (noumena).
Kant's empirical realism allowed for the acknowledgment of an external world as it appears, without committing to an absolute, mind-independent reality.
Although Kant contributed significantly to discussions on realism, his approach differs from the scientific realism debated today, which concerns the truth of scientific theories about a mind-independent world.

3. Do Scientists Consider 'Realism' Philosophically?
Your assertion that scientists typically do not give philosophical consideration to "realism" is valid. Most scientists:

Operate within the scientific framework, which assumes the reliability of empirical methods and the reproducibility of experiments.
Do not explicitly reflect on whether their theories correspond to a mind-independent reality (scientific realism) or are merely useful for predictions (anti-realism).
Philosophical terms like "realism" and "anti-realism" primarily concern philosophers of science. Quantum physics, as you pointed out earlier, has brought such debates closer to scientific practice because its counterintuitive findings challenge the traditional assumptions about reality.

Suggested Clarification
To integrate your view, I would phrase it as follows:

"The assumption of an external world and the goal of describing it accurately are intuitive and implicit within the scientific framework and system.
While the term 'realism' has philosophical roots—debated extensively by figures like Kant—scientists, in general, do not engage with 'realism' or its philosophical implications. Instead, their work is grounded in empirical methodologies, leaving such considerations to philosophers of science, particularly when confronting challenges like those posed by quantum mechanics."

This phrasing acknowledges both the scientific and philosophical perspectives while emphasizing the divide between practical science and philosophical inquiry.

[Iwannaplato]

"As far as the scientists most of them are realists..."
This is a false statement.
Scientists are considered 'realists' or 'antirealists' whereupon the philosophy of science and philosophy is taken into consideration.
This is common in Physics triggered when Quantum Physics was heavily debated.

This near word salad is not correct. Most scientists belief that objects persist when not perceived and most believe in the basic realist model. Your second sentence is simply false and not suprisingly put in the passive tense.

You’re correct that the assumption of an external world is intuitive and often implicit within the scientific framework and system.

This is like saying Christians aren't theists unless the mull over the word theist. Or they aren't dualists if they think there are souls and a transcendent diety.

If it, as you say, an evolutionary default to be a realist - which you have said in a variety of ways thousands of times - then most people are realists. And in fact you have talked about realists being violent and you were not referring to philosophers who are realists, but regular old people in all sorts of groups.

Hypocritical BS.
You should be ashamed of this kind of trash denial of your own positions when they are inconvenient.

[Eodnhoj7]

Since this point is raised frequently, here is a separate thread to address the issue;

I don't misunderstand your argument. It's just fallacious. Your FSRC theory provides no basis for assessing the credibility, reliability or objectivity of a practice and discourse that produces knowledge - and so for comparing discourses - because your first premise is that all knowledge is within an FSRC.

And this is circular, because whatever FSRC 'produces' the knowledge that an FSRC is credible, reliable, etc - can't be self-authenticating or self-authorising. There is no 'master' FSRC above the fray of competing FSRCs - no way to show that astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack.

Here is the mature view [from AI {wR}] to the above problem;

Escaping Circularity:

Here are approaches to avoid circularity:

Non-Circular Foundation: Introduce a meta-framework (outside any specific FSK) that establishes basic principles for evaluating FSKs. This meta-framework could include things like:

• Internal consistency: The FSK doesn't lead to contradictions within itself.
  Explanatory power: The FSK explains a wide range of phenomena.
  Predictive ability: The FSK allows for predictions that can be tested.
  Openness to revision: The FSK allows for new evidence to change its structure.

Break the Circle; Escape Clause: Your proposed escape clause of making "knowledge of the credibility of FSKs" an exception is a reasonable approach. This acknowledges a meta-level knowledge that sits outside the specific FSK being used. This exemption acknowledges that evaluating frameworks themselves requires a different kind of knowledge, one that is more metacognitive (thinking about thinking). This metacognitive knowledge could be based on principles of logic, consistency, evidence-based reasoning, and broad societal acceptance.

Bootstrapping: You can think of establishing the credibility of scientific FSK as a bootstrapping process. Initially, we might rely on simpler frameworks or common-sense observations to evaluate different FSKs. These simpler frameworks might not be perfect, but they can provide a starting point. As we build scientific knowledge, we can refine our criteria for judging FSKs based on evidence, consistency, predictive power, etc.

Convergence: Scientific progress often involves convergence of evidence from multiple frameworks. While individual FSKs might have limitations, the convergence of results across different approaches strengthens the overall credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK.

Levels of Analysis: Another way to escape circularity is to consider levels of analysis. You could argue that basic observation and logic can provide some foundational knowledge (e.g., "the sky is blue") that serves as a starting point for building FSKs. This basic knowledge wouldn't rely on a specific FSK itself.

Here's a revised approach:
Start with a Basic Framework: Begin with a simple, common-sense framework to evaluate different FSKs.
Scientific FSK Emerges: Through observation, experimentation, and refinement, a scientific FSK emerges that demonstrates its effectiveness in explaining and predicting phenomena.
Credibility Through Convergence: The scientific FSK gains further credibility when its results converge with evidence from other independent frameworks.
This approach avoids circularity by acknowledging a starting point outside the specific FSKs and then building credibility through a cumulative process.

Additionally:
Be transparent about the limitations of any FSK, including the scientific one. No framework is perfect, but some are demonstrably better than others at explaining specific phenomena.

Classical Logic Limitations:
Classical logic may not be the best tool for this situation. FSKs are complex systems, and classical logic struggles with fuzzy boundaries and nuanced relationships. Consider exploring:

Fuzzy Logic: Allows for degrees of truth, more accurately reflecting the complexities of FSK evaluation.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge and its justification, which goes beyond the formal rules of classical logic.

The necessity to break circularity for the sake of progress is argued circularly, progress because progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since this point is raised frequently, here is a separate thread to address the issue;

I don't misunderstand your argument. It's just fallacious. Your FSRC theory provides no basis for assessing the credibility, reliability or objectivity of a practice and discourse that produces knowledge - and so for comparing discourses - because your first premise is that all knowledge is within an FSRC.

And this is circular, because whatever FSRC 'produces' the knowledge that an FSRC is credible, reliable, etc - can't be self-authenticating or self-authorising. There is no 'master' FSRC above the fray of competing FSRCs - no way to show that astronomy is 'gold standard' and astrology is cack.

Here is the mature view [from AI {wR}] to the above problem;

Escaping Circularity:

Here are approaches to avoid circularity:

Non-Circular Foundation: Introduce a meta-framework (outside any specific FSK) that establishes basic principles for evaluating FSKs. This meta-framework could include things like:

• Internal consistency: The FSK doesn't lead to contradictions within itself.
  Explanatory power: The FSK explains a wide range of phenomena.
  Predictive ability: The FSK allows for predictions that can be tested.
  Openness to revision: The FSK allows for new evidence to change its structure.

Break the Circle; Escape Clause: Your proposed escape clause of making "knowledge of the credibility of FSKs" an exception is a reasonable approach. This acknowledges a meta-level knowledge that sits outside the specific FSK being used. This exemption acknowledges that evaluating frameworks themselves requires a different kind of knowledge, one that is more metacognitive (thinking about thinking). This metacognitive knowledge could be based on principles of logic, consistency, evidence-based reasoning, and broad societal acceptance.

Bootstrapping: You can think of establishing the credibility of scientific FSK as a bootstrapping process. Initially, we might rely on simpler frameworks or common-sense observations to evaluate different FSKs. These simpler frameworks might not be perfect, but they can provide a starting point. As we build scientific knowledge, we can refine our criteria for judging FSKs based on evidence, consistency, predictive power, etc.

Convergence: Scientific progress often involves convergence of evidence from multiple frameworks. While individual FSKs might have limitations, the convergence of results across different approaches strengthens the overall credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK.

Levels of Analysis: Another way to escape circularity is to consider levels of analysis. You could argue that basic observation and logic can provide some foundational knowledge (e.g., "the sky is blue") that serves as a starting point for building FSKs. This basic knowledge wouldn't rely on a specific FSK itself.

Here's a revised approach:
Start with a Basic Framework: Begin with a simple, common-sense framework to evaluate different FSKs.
Scientific FSK Emerges: Through observation, experimentation, and refinement, a scientific FSK emerges that demonstrates its effectiveness in explaining and predicting phenomena.
Credibility Through Convergence: The scientific FSK gains further credibility when its results converge with evidence from other independent frameworks.
This approach avoids circularity by acknowledging a starting point outside the specific FSKs and then building credibility through a cumulative process.

Additionally:
Be transparent about the limitations of any FSK, including the scientific one. No framework is perfect, but some are demonstrably better than others at explaining specific phenomena.

Classical Logic Limitations:
Classical logic may not be the best tool for this situation. FSKs are complex systems, and classical logic struggles with fuzzy boundaries and nuanced relationships. Consider exploring:

Fuzzy Logic: Allows for degrees of truth, more accurately reflecting the complexities of FSK evaluation.
Epistemology: The branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge and its justification, which goes beyond the formal rules of classical logic.

The necessity to break circularity for the sake of progress is argued circularly, progress because progress.

The concept of circularity is merely a logical element and condition.
Logic is merely a tool to facilitate survival, human progress and flourishing.

One point overlooked is 'time and tide wait for no man'.
In term of time and space, there is no rigid circularity [only valid for classical logic which is crude and limited] but an iterative spiral [self-reference] which is essential for progress for every human.

When we take circularity [of classical logic] to the meta-level, the logic is then well-honed albeit not perfect but we can still use [as evident] a less-perfect argument [knowledge] to contribute to greater advancement in human progress in a pragmatic mode as supported by rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

[Eodnhoj7]

Since this point is raised frequently, here is a separate thread to address the issue;


Here is the mature view [from AI {wR}] to the above problem;

The necessity to break circularity for the sake of progress is argued circularly, progress because progress.

The concept of circularity is merely a logical element and condition.
Logic is merely a tool to facilitate survival, human progress and flourishing.

One point overlooked is 'time and tide wait for no man'.
In term of time and space, there is no rigid circularity [only valid for classical logic which is crude and limited] but an iterative spiral [self-reference] which is essential for progress for every human.

When we take circularity [of classical logic] to the meta-level, the logic is then well-honed albeit not perfect but we can still use [as evident] a less-perfect argument [knowledge] to contribute to greater advancement in human progress in a pragmatic mode as supported by rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.

There is no coherent justification for advancement other than the circularity of its own sake.