Why the Scientific FS is the Most Credible & Objective

[Age]

We have gone through this before.
Here is AI response to the above [save me a lot time], it would have taken me hours or researching to come up with the above. So it is wise to rely on AI.

1) I did not make a regress argument. I could see one of those having a similar beginning, but actually I asked a question, which you failed to answer and given how you prompted so did the AI.

So, strawman.
Then 2) what the AI presented is a kind of FS. Is it better or worse than the scientific FS. 3) It actually uses the scientific FS as part of itself, so...is this biased?

There is no denial that, whether you agree or not the above will add knowledge of VALID alternative views to widen your knowledge base. So why the complain?

Why the complain, as you say, when other people have differing interpretations of Kant, for example? Why do you, in those instances essentially insult them and praise your own knowledge? Why when dealing with realists do you have the complain, as you say, since they are presenting other views? Why must you in those instances do some lay mindreading psychoanalysis?

When someone has a different view from you on one of your pet topics, you complain and insult and psychoanalyze, then you go on to act as if only your viewpoint is valid, generally using AIs to support you in this?

Can you admit the hypocrisy?

I had spent 3 years full time on Kant's CPR [main] and other works and thereafter continually refresh on it, thus I [average intellect] have an above average understanding of Kantianism.

It does NOT MATTER ONE IOTA if you, or another, spends one second, one minute, one year, one decade, or a so-called 'one whole life' on some thing, if there are PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS existing WITHIN 'that one'.

WHEN are you human beings FINALLY GOING TO 'WAKE UP', as some might say, and COMPREHEND and SEE what has been ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING, HERE, for SO, SO LONG, NOW?

If a Kant ignoramus [most poster here are] presented something that is obviously not in alignment with Kant's CPR, surely I will counter it and present the aligned view. That is merely expressing my intellectual responsibility and integrity.
There are exceptions of very contentious views which are highly debatable.

It is the same for anyone who is expert in Hume, Hegel, Heidegger, etc., if they are intellectual responsible they will correct any obvious wrong views they come across.

LOL This one, STILL, BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it KNOWS, for sure, what ANOTHER human being ACTUALLY MEANT, and/or ACTUALLY INTENDED.

LOL These posters, here, as I have SHOWN REPEATEDLY do not even KNOW, for sure, what they ACTUALLY MEANT, and ACTUALLY INTENDED in a LOT of what they say and write, here, let alone KNOWING, for sure, what 'others' ACTUALLY MEAN/T, and INTEND/ED.

I have ALSO ALREADY SHOWN the very LACK OF FREQUENCY that these posters, here, would put into FINDING OUT, for sure, what another ACTUALLY MEANS, or INTENDS in what they say and write, here. And, LOL this is even WHEN 'the other' is ALIVE TO INFORM them.

The one known as "kant", here, is NOT AROUND ANYMORE to ASK FOR nor to even SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY. Thus, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing CLAIMED ABOUT what "kant" ACTUALLY MEANT or ACTUALLY INTENDED is just ALL PRESUPPOSITION. Which, let 'us' ALL NOT FORGET could ALL be completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

[FlashDangerpants]

I had spent 3 years full time on Kant's CPR [main] and other works and thereafter continually refresh on it, thus I [average intellect] have an above average understanding of Kantianism.

That's the sort of thing we were discussing that other thread - the obsessive behaviour with no particularly useful purpose. 3 years of doing something as narrow as that doesn't actually make you an expert, it just explains why you don't understand how to form arguments correctly.

[FlashDangerpants]

Precisely when did VA stop using one of these KFC-Buckets to assign "credibility" and just dump that job an AI bot? And what is his excuse for that?

Oh, you must have missed his AI FSERC threads. Here's how it works. The best FSERC for evaluation philosophical positions is for VA to use an AI. This is because his prompts are more nuanced. How does he know this? Because they produce the correct answers. Other peoples prompts are not nuanced enough. How does he know this? Because 1) AIs confirm that more nuanced prompts are more likely to produce better answers. 2) And his prompts are better because they produce answers he agrees with. Now someone might object that this is very subjective, rather than intersubjective, which is what VA means by 'objective'. But this is failing to understand that people who disagree with him are running on evolutionary defaults. Get it.

It's not his intuition, it's objective.

Well it's a good job he's too special for circularity to be a problem when he does it, eh?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had spent 3 years full time on Kant's CPR [main] and other works and thereafter continually refresh on it, thus I [average intellect] have an above average understanding of Kantianism.

That's the sort of thing we were discussing that other thread - the obsessive behaviour with no particularly useful purpose. 3 years of doing something as narrow as that doesn't actually make you an expert, it just explains why you don't understand how to form arguments correctly.

Where did I claim to be an expert?

My point is, as an average reader I would be have an above average [>50%] and greater understanding of Kant than one who merely read Kant superficially or from secondary sources or have not read Kant directly.

I don't spent 3 years full time on Tom Dick or Harry philosophers but given that Kant is one of the Greatest Philosophers of ALL Times, and that he claimed completeness of philosophical coverage I have a lot to gain from that effort.

Your focus on Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language is a lost cause with low dividends.

[FlashDangerpants]

I had spent 3 years full time on Kant's CPR [main] and other works and thereafter continually refresh on it, thus I [average intellect] have an above average understanding of Kantianism.

That's the sort of thing we were discussing that other thread - the obsessive behaviour with no particularly useful purpose. 3 years of doing something as narrow as that doesn't actually make you an expert, it just explains why you don't understand how to form arguments correctly.

Where did I claim to be an expert?

My point is, as an average reader I would be have an above average [>50%] and greater understanding of Kant than one who merely read Kant superficially or from secondary sources or have not read Kant directly.

I don't spent 3 years full time on Tom Dick or Harry philosophers but given that Kant is one of the Greatest Philosophers of ALL Times, and that he claimed completeness of philosophical coverage I have a lot to gain from that effort.

Your focus on Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language is a lost cause with low dividends.

You're no an average reader, you are capable of reading a single paper "at least 20 times" and failing to understand the basics of the argument it contains.

Spending 3 years reading the same book over and over again like it's a full time job wouldn't be rational even if it did result in expertise, failure to even gain that result is sad.

But you are not really telling the truth anyway, you routinely assign yourself pre-eminence. You have definitely told ChatGPT to consider you an expert on Kant because it has referenced that exact thing in its response to you at least once. You have openly accused two Oxford professors of philosophy of having lesser understandings of Kant than you have, so your faux modesty is an obvious fraud.

You didn't spend any time learning the basic skills that make philosophy possible. You don't understand basic logic or argument formation. Yes, you should also pursue a much broader education than just reading Kant over and over again if you want to be educated in philosophy, but those basics you never mastered are required to understand any of it, Kant included.



But it's been at least 10 years since your pointless 3 year Kant escapade, so questions of why you never improved are also raised. That mostly comes down to the way you read, which is never about understanding what the author wrote. You think only about your own argument, but that should come later, first you need to understand the material, and that's where you have always failed hardest.


You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, enough to waste 3 years on Kant. Why not spend 3 years in education and try to get a degree in Philosophy like you probably should have at the start? When you look around this site, you can easily spot people who think they are great at phil but who have never had their essays on the subject marked by a professor of it (IC, you, Jacobi, etc)

[Iwannaplato]

I had spent 3 years full time on Kant's CPR [main] and other works and thereafter continually refresh on it, thus I [average intellect] have an above average understanding of Kantianism.

That's the sort of thing we were discussing that other thread - the obsessive behaviour with no particularly useful purpose. 3 years of doing something as narrow as that doesn't actually make you an expert, it just explains why you don't understand how to form arguments correctly.

Where did I claim to be an expert?

OK, this a test of your integrity, VA. You have claimed to be an expert.

There are three [+1] main areas I claim to be a reasonable expert in, i.e.
1. Buddhism
2. Islam
3. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
4. What is Philosophy ..

Btw, I am a reasonable expert on Kant's Noumena versus Phenomena,

I am not claiming my expertise is 99/100 but ranges from 60/100 to 80/100 depending on the subject.

So, you are not claiming in this post the highest degree of being an expert, but, yes, that you are an expert.

That was what I did when someone in the past criticized my knowledge of Kant as flimsy which I admit I was then and I took the trouble to master Kant which I had to spent 3 years full time. .

Someone criticized your knowledge of Kant which you admit was flimsy then AND THEN you mastered Kant.

You mastered Kant. To most that statement is equal to or greater than claiming you are an expert.

Now do you have the integrity to admit that you in fact have claimed to be an expert. Or is that kind of admission utterly beyond you.

[Iwannaplato]

But you are not really telling the truth anyway,

Yup, not even close. See the my post above.

[Iwannaplato]

Well it's a good job he's too special for circularity to be a problem when he does it, eh?

Well, he's learned to trust his intuition since when he examines the products, he can intuitively sense they are correct.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's the sort of thing we were discussing that other thread - the obsessive behaviour with no particularly useful purpose. 3 years of doing something as narrow as that doesn't actually make you an expert, it just explains why you don't understand how to form arguments correctly.

Where did I claim to be an expert?

OK, this a test of your integrity, VA. You have claimed to be an expert.

There are three [+1] main areas I claim to be a reasonable expert in, i.e.
1. Buddhism
2. Islam
3. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
4. What is Philosophy ..

Btw, I am a reasonable expert on Kant's Noumena versus Phenomena,

I am not claiming my expertise is 99/100 but ranges from 60/100 to 80/100 depending on the subject.

So, you are not claiming in this post the highest degree of being an expert, but, yes, that you are an expert.

That was what I did when someone in the past criticized my knowledge of Kant as flimsy which I admit I was then and I took the trouble to master Kant which I had to spent 3 years full time. .

Someone criticized your knowledge of Kant which you admit was flimsy then AND THEN you mastered Kant.

You mastered Kant. To most that statement is equal to or greater than claiming you are an expert.

Now do you have the integrity to admit that you in fact have claimed to be an expert. Or is that kind of admission utterly beyond you.

I am very conscious and deliberate on this; I am always careful in qualifying "expert" with "reasonable" i.e. it is 'near-expert' not a full fledge expert like those who are real academic specialists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well it's a good job he's too special for circularity to be a problem when he does it, eh?

Well, he's learned to trust his intuition since when he examines the products, he can intuitively sense they are correct.

Yes, ... nevertheless, intuitively my points are correct and many a times it a matter of quickie and omitting in between arguments.
Often in many cases where I am accused of circularity [by mind independent PH or FDP], it is a case of self-reference involving humans - after all whatever is real is contingent upon a human based FSERC.

Here's AI:

AI Wrote:
You've astutely observed that humans often engage in self-referential and iterative thought processes, seemingly defying the logical pitfalls of circularity. This is a fascinating paradox that has intrigued philosophers and logicians for centuries.

While self-reference can lead to logical paradoxes when not handled carefully, it's also a fundamental aspect of human cognition and creativity. Our ability to reflect on ourselves, our experiences, and our beliefs is what sets us apart from other species.

Examples of Beneficial Self-Reference and Iteration:
......

[FlashDangerpants]

Well it's a good job he's too special for circularity to be a problem when he does it, eh?

Well, he's learned to trust his intuition since when he examines the products, he can intuitively sense they are correct.

Your mistake there was to leave the actual meaning of your writing in the subtext ... which he cannot pick up on.

[Iwannaplato]

Well it's a good job he's too special for circularity to be a problem when he does it, eh?

Well, he's learned to trust his intuition since when he examines the products, he can intuitively sense they are correct.

Your mistake there was to leave the actual meaning of your writing in the subtext ... which he cannot pick up on.

LOL

[FlashDangerpants]

I am very conscious and deliberate on this; I am always careful in qualifying "expert" with "reasonable" i.e. it is 'near-expert' not a full fledge expert like those who are real academic specialists.

But you contradict that by awarding yourself a fake doctorate while you describe everyone who opposes you as Kindergarten level ultracepidarians.

I cannot demand that you [so kindergartenish] see my point of view [Phd level] which is counter intuitive.

You are not humble, and you aren't fooling anyone either.

[Iwannaplato]

I am very conscious and deliberate on this; I am always careful in qualifying "expert" with "reasonable" i.e. it is 'near-expert' not a full fledge expert like those who are real academic specialists.

which is a type of expert. Further, I note that you do not respond to the part where you claim to have 'mastered Kant'. Mastered! If you cannot see this is a claim to being an expert in Kant, you are confused. I am sure many professional experts in Kant would hesitate to say they have 'mastered' Kant.

Integrity test....failed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am very conscious and deliberate on this; I am always careful in qualifying "expert" with "reasonable" i.e. it is 'near-expert' not a full fledge expert like those who are real academic specialists.

which is a type of expert. Further, I note that you do not respond to the part where you claim to have 'mastered Kant'. Mastered! If you cannot see this is a claim to being an expert in Kant, you are confused. I am sure many professional experts in Kant would hesitate to say they have 'mastered' Kant.

Integrity test....failed.

It is because Kant's works is VERY complex and difficult to grasp and apply that we need to quality and have different levels for the term 'expert'.

"Mastered" with reference to Kant is very relative.
In this sense, I meant I have covered every aspect of the CPR and have reasonable knowledge of it. As such, I know where each specific issues are within the CPR.
However, I am not a full-expert in the sense, I still have to refer to CPR, Kant's dictionaries and secondary article to articulate Kant's ideas.

As such, my use of 'expert' [qualified] and 'mastered' with reference to Kantianism is to differentiate those who claim to be Kantian but had merely read the CPR partly and relied mostly on secondary sources.