What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?

[godelian]

While the Peano Axioms might seem abstract, they are indeed rooted in our intuitive understanding of numbers and arithmetic operations.

Our intuitive understanding is empirical. Peano Arithmetic is blind symbol manipulation. So, it cannot possibly be rooted in our intuition.

Ask a child to use the Peano Arithmetic recursion rules for the addition. It won't be able to do it. Ask even most adults.

Strawman. I did not state, science is the only FS is the only FS that can justify anything.

Well, that is even clearly unsustainable. The statement would fail to justify itself.

My principle is:
'Anything' that is claimed real [or truth of it] is contingent [justified] upon a human based Framework and System [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective, i.e. the gold standard.

If a claim is testable, then by all means, go ahead and test it. However, most claims are not testable. That is why bombarding the scientific method of experimental testing into some kind of "gold standard" is silly.

If the scientific FS is the gold standard, we can indexed it as a standard 100/100, this mean that there are other FS_s which could be rated at 0.001/100 and others in between.

Generally, [detailed justifications need to be provided].
Philosophical Mathematical Realism as an ideology would be rated at 10/100 based on a rationally accepted methodology with rational criteria and weightages.
Philosophical mathematical antirealism would be rated at 90/100.
Philosophical theistic realism grounded on faith would be rated at 0.1/100.

You cannot test anything to support that view. You cannot measure anything either. Hence, your numerical approach to the problem is nonsensical.

Furthermore, the various epistemic methods exclude each other.

For example, if the axiomatic method is applicable then the scientific one is not, and the other way around. They are not in competition with each other.

Therefore, the ratings and/or weight tags that you attach to the various epistemic methods, are absurd in more than one way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

While the Peano Axioms might seem abstract, they are indeed rooted in our intuitive understanding of numbers and arithmetic operations.

Our intuitive understanding is empirical. Peano Arithmetic is blind symbol manipulation. So, it cannot possibly be rooted in our intuition.

Ask a child to use the Peano Arithmetic recursion rules for the addition. It won't be able to do it. Ask even most adults.

You still don't get it, so end up in throwing silly counters like the above.
Yours is fallacious, you cannot conflate 'intuition' solely with 'child'.
You seem to imply that when one is doing Peano, one is applying one's intuition and guesses.
Nope that is not the intuition we are referring to.
'Intuition' in this case refer to the deeper coded algorithm in the brain, deeper than the typical instincts.

Yes our 'intuitive' is empirical [but not intuitive understanding], it is not based on the empirical experiences at present, rather it is based on the empirical experiences [a priori] of our past humans ancestors [finger counting] and even to an extent to our non-human animals' experiences.
Since it is positive and adaptive, the sense of numerical quantity is coded embedded somewhere in our DNA [will be uncovered in the future].

I stated, as long as there is a use of numbers up to the most complex equations and formulas, it is reducible to our biological origin via adaption.
Peano Arithmetic uses numbers, so it is reducible human intuition, i.e. to the human biological origin via adaption.
It is not representing something that pre-existed as absolutely mind independent as claim by mathematical realism or platonic realism.

Strawman. I did not state, science is the only FS is the only FS that can justify anything.

Well, that is even clearly unsustainable. The statement would fail to justify itself.

My principle is:
'Anything' that is claimed real [or truth of it] is contingent [justified] upon a human based Framework and System [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective, i.e. the gold standard.

If a claim is testable, then by all means, go ahead and test it. However, most claims are not testable. That is why bombarding the scientific method of experimental testing into some kind of "gold standard" is silly.

Regardless of your denial, that is what is going on in practice which is evident in most human activity at present.
AI provided a listing of scenario to support the above, in terms of medicine, technology, etc.
If you need to have a brain surgery, would you or most humans at present trust a shaman or a certified and qualified brain surgeon and the same for other similar scenarios where evidenced-based-science is king despite having its limitations.

If the scientific FS is the gold standard, we can indexed it as a standard 100/100, this mean that there are other FS_s which could be rated at 0.001/100 and others in between.

Generally, [detailed justifications need to be provided].
Philosophical Mathematical Realism as an ideology would be rated at 10/100 based on a rationally accepted methodology with rational criteria and weightages.
Philosophical mathematical antirealism would be rated at 90/100.
Philosophical theistic realism grounded on faith would be rated at 0.1/100.

You cannot test anything to support that view. You cannot measure anything either. Hence, your numerical approach to the problem is nonsensical.

Furthermore, the various epistemic methods exclude each other.

For example, if the axiomatic method is applicable then the scientific one is not, and the other way around. They are not in competition with each other.

Therefore, the ratings and/or weight tags that you attach to the various epistemic methods, are absurd in more than one way.

If you need to have a brain surgery, would you or most humans at present trust
1. a shaman or
2. a certified and qualified science-based brain surgeon to do it?
and the same for other similar scenarios where evidenced-based-science is king despite having its limitations.
If you are present normal human, you would definitely opt for 2 above.

Why??? do you choose option 2?
based on blind faith?

Why you choose option 2 has an implicit basis and an intuitive methodology.

My methodology with the ratings and/or weightages will make it explicit and make it objective on why I would choose option 2 above.
Thus my option is objective and transparent.
It is open to be verified by others.
If there are weaknesses or issues, the methodology can be improved via continuous improvements to make it more objective to justify why I opt for the scientific based option or other alternatives.

Thus the FS and its ranking via a continually improved rational methodology is the most pragmatic approach to ensure credibility and objectivity.

[godelian]

I stated, as long as there is a use of numbers up to the most complex equations and formulas, it is reducible to our biological origin via adaption.

A computer also uses numbers and arithmetic. Is it for a computer also reducible to its biological origin via adaption?

If you need to have a brain surgery, would you or most humans at present trust a shaman or a certified and qualified brain surgeon and the same for other similar scenarios where evidenced-based-science is king despite having its limitations.

You have constructed a false dichotomy that you go on to use as a straw man.The construct itself is nonsensical. This situation simply never occurs.

Why??? do you choose option 2?
based on blind faith?

I am not interested in discussing a straw man that is so obviously stupid.

My methodology with the ratings and/or weightages will make it explicit and make it objective on why I would choose option 2 above.

The fact that you need to construct an imbecile straw man to defend your so-called "methodology", quod non, is simply some more evidence that it is of the same deplorable low level.

Your ratings and weight tags are nonsensical. Just like your false dichotomy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated, as long as there is a use of numbers up to the most complex equations and formulas, it is reducible to our biological origin via adaption.

A computer also uses numbers and arithmetic. Is it for a computer also reducible to its biological origin via adaption?

Surely you are not at that level of low cognitivity.
Whatever is the computer i.e. the OS or software they are reducible to numbers within the minds of the humans who construct and use the computers.

If you need to have a brain surgery, would you or most humans at present trust a shaman or a certified and qualified brain surgeon and the same for other similar scenarios where evidenced-based-science is king despite having its limitations.

You have constructed a false dichotomy that you go on to use as a straw man. The construct itself is nonsensical. This situation simply never occurs.

It is a very common occurrence around the world where people insist upon traditional fold medicine and totally reject modern scientific based medicines.
There are so many cases of death when patients opted for traditional folk medicines rather than modern scientific based medicinal practices.
I under there are cases where traditional medicine [black box approach] is better that modern scientific based medicine but still the %, credibility and objective is in favor of science.
Medicine is just one example, there are many other cases where scientific based is more effective than traditional approaches.

Why??? do you choose option 2?
based on blind faith?

I am not interested in discussing a straw man that is so obviously stupid.

That is just escapism.

My methodology with the ratings and/or weightages will make it explicit and make it objective on why I would choose option 2 above.

The fact that you need to construct an imbecile straw man to defend your so-called "methodology", quod non, is simply some more evidence that it is of the same deplorable low level.

Your ratings and weight tags are nonsensical. Just like your false dichotomy.

What I proposed is commonly practiced in various degrees of precision.
It is just your ignorance that you prefer not to acknowledge its existence.

[godelian]

I stated, as long as there is a use of numbers up to the most complex equations and formulas, it is reducible to our biological origin via adaption.

A computer also uses numbers and arithmetic. Is it for a computer also reducible to its biological origin via adaption?

Surely you are not at that level of low cognitivity.
Whatever is the computer i.e. the OS or software they are reducible to numbers within the minds of the humans who construct and use the computers.

Arithmetic on computers is an alternative implementation that is unrelated to any biological origin.

What I proposed is commonly practiced in various degrees of precision.
It is just your ignorance that you prefer not to acknowledge its existence.

That kind of ratings and weight tags are not used in science. They are not used in mathematics. They are not used in history. They are not used in any serious discipline. You say that you find the scientific method the most credible but you absolutely never use it. Instead, you resort to inventing questionable weight tags. Why don't you use a scientific approach to rating things?

[Veritas Aequitas]

A computer also uses numbers and arithmetic. Is it for a computer also reducible to its biological origin via adaption?

Surely you are not at that level of low cognitivity.
Whatever is the computer i.e. the OS or software they are reducible to numbers within the minds of the humans who construct and use the computers.

Arithmetic on computers is an alternative implementation that is unrelated to any biological origin.

Your thinking is too superficial. On first impression yes but this is a philosophy forum where one need to think deeper and wider.
That we use natural numbers or binary is traceable and reducible to our ancestors fingers counting and 'something-nothing' sense of quantity.
Even modern humans [babies, toddlers] start off with counting fingers to activate their inherit sense of mumbers and quantity.
Show me where and how else do modern humans develop a sense of numbers and quantity.

What I proposed is commonly practiced in various degrees of precision.
It is just your ignorance that you prefer not to acknowledge its existence.

That kind of ratings and weight tags are not used in science. They are not used in mathematics. They are not used in history. They are not used in any serious discipline. You say that you find the scientific method the most credible but you absolutely never use it. Instead, you resort to inventing questionable weight tags. Why don't you use a scientific approach to rating things?

Are you familiar with the social sciences, e.g. psychology, sociology and the likes which use ratings and weightages commonly?
QM relies heavily on probability, i.e. implied ratings.

You are strawmaning re the scientific method.
The scientific method is used within the science-FS by scientists who work within the scientific FS. I am not a scientist.

My main point is on the rating of various FSs to assess their credibility and objectivity; at present the scientific FS is the most credible and objective, thus the gold standard.
That the science-based evidence is at present taken as more reliable over traditional folk beliefs is evident the scientific-FS is more credible and objective.

As such, in general [not exceptions], on facing any claims of knowledge, the first thing to deliberate is to ask, from which FS is the claim derived from.
If someone's claim is based on 'because my mother said so', obviously the claim from the scientific FS is more credible and objective on the same issue.

[Skepdick]

A framework and System of Knowledge is (informally) known as a theory.

You are re-inventing the wheel.

[godelian]

Even modern humans [babies, toddlers] start off with counting fingers to activate their inherit sense of mumbers and quantity.

This is true for humans but not for computers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A framework and System of Knowledge is (informally) known as a theory.
You are re-inventing the wheel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Whatever the "theory" it is implied there is supporting framework and System of Knowledge but I want to make it explicit and rigorous because the details machinery is critical to avoid confusions.
In addition, I need to extend the FSK to a Framework and System of Emergence and Realization of reality [FSER] prior to knowing and describing the knowledge therefrom.
The FSER will prevent for example, theists from claiming there is knowledge [FSK] of an absolutely human independent real God out there in the external world, wherefrom it leads to all sort of theistic related evils.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Even modern humans [babies, toddlers] start off with counting fingers to activate their inherit sense of numbers and quantity.

This is true for humans but not for computers.

As I had stated your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

1.Where did computers come from if not created by humans?
2. Where did the OS and Softwares programs grounded on numbers and the binary system come from if not from humans?
3. Where did the numbers and binary from humans come from?
4. There are traceable and reducible to our human origins via adaptations re evolutions since eons ago.

Problem is you are stuck because you don't believe in evolution but rather humans are created by a God [illusory] with pre-existing programs for numbers and abilities to create computer, it OS and related software.
As I had stated, this is purely a psychological problem not an epistemological issue.

[Skepdick]

A framework and System of Knowledge is (informally) known as a theory.
You are re-inventing the wheel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Whatever the "theory" it is implied there is supporting framework and System of Knowledge but I want to make it explicit and rigorous because the details machinery is critical to avoid confusions.
In addition, I need to extend the FSK to a Framework and System of Emergence and Realization of reality [FSER] prior to knowing and describing the knowledge therefrom.
The FSER will prevent for example, theists from claiming there is knowledge [FSK] of an absolutely human independent real God out there in the external world, wherefrom it leads to all sort of theistic related evils.

So you don't have an FSK for discerning evil from non-evil FSKs?

That sounds like a theistic FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A framework and System of Knowledge is (informally) known as a theory.
You are re-inventing the wheel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Whatever the "theory" it is implied there is supporting framework and System of Knowledge but I want to make it explicit and rigorous because the details machinery is critical to avoid confusions.
In addition, I need to extend the FSK to a Framework and System of Emergence and Realization of reality [FSER] prior to knowing and describing the knowledge therefrom.
The FSER will prevent for example, theists from claiming there is knowledge [FSK] of an absolutely human independent real God out there in the external world, wherefrom it leads to all sort of theistic related evils.

So you don't have an FSK for discerning evil from non-evil FSKs?
That sounds like a theistic FSK.

We can establish a FSK for discerning evil from non-evil as a sub-FSK or a Morality-Proper FSK with its relevant, Constitution, methodology, relevant definitions, assumptions, limitations, processes, inputs, outputs and other conditions.

A theistic FSK can differentiate evil from non-evil but since a theistic FSK is grounded on something that is illusory [God based on faith] it cannot be as credible and objective as the Morality-Proper FSK where majority of its inputs are from the scientific FSK or FSERK.

[Skepdick]

We can establish a FSK for discerning evil from non-evil as a sub-FSK or a Morality-Proper FSK with its relevant, Constitution, methodology, relevant definitions, assumptions, limitations, processes, inputs, outputs and other conditions.

A theistic FSK can differentiate evil from non-evil but since a theistic FSK is grounded on something that is illusory [God based on faith] it cannot be as credible and objective as the Morality-Proper FSK where majority of its inputs are from the scientific FSK or FSERK.

Well, what's your Morality-Proper FSK grounded in?

Does there ever come a point in your life where you recognize you are chasing your own tail?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We can establish a FSK for discerning evil from non-evil as a sub-FSK or a Morality-Proper FSK with its relevant, Constitution, methodology, relevant definitions, assumptions, limitations, processes, inputs, outputs and other conditions.

A theistic FSK can differentiate evil from non-evil but since a theistic FSK is grounded on something that is illusory [God based on faith] it cannot be as credible and objective as the Morality-Proper FSK where majority of its inputs are from the scientific FSK or FSERK.

Well, what's your Morality-Proper FSK grounded in?

Does there ever come a point in your life where you recognize you are chasing your own tail?

The above logic is applicable to every beliefs and methodology but yet humanity has progress since humans first emerged.

My Morality-Proper FSK would be grounded on critical thinking and what is generally accepted as rationality plus wisdom.
Obviously there is no God to decide on an absolute answer, but my Morality-Proper FSK will be as close as the credibility and objectivity.
Despite theistic dogmatism, it is evident the scientific FSERK has a trend of positive progress and my Morality-Proper FSK will ride on that trend.

[Skepdick]

The above logic is applicable to every beliefs and methodology but yet humanity has progress since humans first emerged.

My Morality-Proper FSK would be grounded on critical thinking and what is generally accepted as rationality plus wisdom.
Obviously there is no God to decide on an absolute answer, but my Morality-Proper FSK will be as close as the credibility and objectivity.
Despite theistic dogmatism, it is evident the scientific FSERK has a trend of positive progress and my Morality-Proper FSK will ride on that trend.

But there is an ultimate decider. For what counts as rationality and non-rationality; what counts as wisdom and non-wisdom.

What counts as progress and what counts as regress.
What counts as Morality Proper and Morlaity non-Proper.

You are going in circles. Not much wisdom in that.

A theist can assert everything you've asserted without wasting their life doing it. Why? Because reasons.

The end.