FSK is Not My Invention

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is FSK an actual thing? ..or is it Veritas' invention?

His own invention. He still doesn't realise how idiotic it all is to everyone else.

A Challenge from AI:
"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.

Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.

"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

2. Provide Examples of Implicit FSKs
Scientific FSK: The scientific community relies on a framework built on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. This is a well-documented system of knowledge.
Legal FSK: Legal systems are frameworks based on statutes, case law, and principles like justice and fairness.
Cultural FSK: Different cultures operate within their own frameworks of knowledge, values, and practices, demonstrating that FSKs are ubiquitous.

"Every discipline, community, or system of inquiry operates within an implicit or explicit framework and system of knowledge. I am merely articulating this universal practice with the term 'FSK.'"

3. Highlight Philosophical Precedents
Philosophy and Paradigms: Refer to Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in science as examples of implicit FSKs. Kuhn described how scientific knowledge progresses within paradigms that dictate methods, questions, and interpretations.
Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism can be understood as an FSK, where human cognition structures knowledge through categories and principles.
Epistemology: Epistemologists often discuss "frameworks" or "systems" of justification, making the idea of FSK a recognized concept in philosophical inquiry.

"The notion of frameworks and systems guiding knowledge is not new. Philosophical traditions, from Kant to Kuhn, have long recognized the structured nature of human knowledge."

4. Frame FSK as an Explicit Articulation
Acknowledge that while the term FSK may not be commonly used, it is simply an explicit articulation of a widespread and intuitive concept.
Explain that articulating this concept with precision can help make it easier to analyze and discuss the structure of knowledge.

"The term 'FSK' is my way of explicitly articulating a common and widely observed reality: that all knowledge operates within structured frameworks and systems. Naming this concept makes it easier to discuss and analyze."

5. Invite Constructive Engagement
Challenge your accuser to provide examples of knowledge or cognition that do not rely on any framework or system.
Encourage them to critically assess whether FSK is genuinely an invention or a descriptive reality.

"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

This approach reinforces your position while demonstrating that the concept of FSK is grounded in well-established practices and philosophical insights. By framing FSK as a clarification of what is already common, you disarm accusations of inventing it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Flannel Jesus]

"If you believe that FSK is an invention,

I google FSK, google says

AI Overview
Learn more
FSK stands for Frequency-Shift Keying

The entire first page of results says nothing about what you think FSK means. You did invent it.

[attofishpi]

"If you believe that FSK is an invention,

I google FSK, google says

AI Overview
Learn more
FSK stands for Frequency-Shift Keying

The entire first page of results says nothing about what you think FSK means. You did invent it.

Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.

Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

[Atla]

Who if anyone in history used the expression "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)"? Summary only.

This time the bot didn't know how to reply so it automatically searched the internet.

Searched: 4 webpages
The expression "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK) is not widely attributed to any single historical figure but has appeared in discussions across various domains, particularly philosophy, education, and knowledge management.

Philosophical and Theoretical Contexts: The phrase has been used in epistemological discussions to denote a structured understanding or integration of knowledge, though it often lacks a unified definition. Discussions in online philosophy forums suggest its use as a rhetorical tool to organize abstract concepts, sometimes criticized for its vagueness​
PHILOSOPHY NOW FORUM (viewtopic.php?t=31889)
​
PUBLIC HISTORY WEEKLY
.

Educational Use: Scholars in history education and pedagogy, such as Peter Lee and Stéphane Lévesque, have discussed "frameworks of knowledge" in the context of helping students organize and relate historical narratives, but these uses are more implicit than tied explicitly to "FSK" as a term​
PUBLIC HISTORY WEEKLY
.

Knowledge Management: In organizational settings, frameworks and systems of knowledge are integral to processes that codify and distribute knowledge within institutions. Scholars like Davenport and Prusak have explored this within knowledge management literature, but the specific acronym "FSK" does not prominently appear in this field either​
REALKM
​
OXFORD ACADEMIC
.

Overall, while the concept behind FSK is addressed in various fields, its exact phrasing does not have a single historical origin or a universally accepted meaning. Instead, it appears contextually, often as a means to conceptualize structured knowledge systems.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

[attofishpi]

Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

Ranking system? What is wisdom doing in there? and actually explain the ranking system..

[FlashDangerpants]

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.

Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.

"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

You cannot clarify the concept of the FSK as common fact because it explicitly denies the common sense view of facts.

With common facts it is undeniable that in the case that two mutually contradictory fact claims are made, either one or both fact claims is untrue. Your FSK theory has denied that for a decade now, so your option to claim that the FSK thing is neither extraordinary nor a deviation from the common view of facts is denied as obviously absurd.

2. Provide Examples of Implicit FSKs
Scientific FSK: The scientific community relies on a framework built on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. This is a well-documented system of knowledge.
Legal FSK: Legal systems are frameworks based on statutes, case law, and principles like justice and fairness.
Cultural FSK: Different cultures operate within their own frameworks of knowledge, values, and practices, demonstrating that FSKs are ubiquitous.

"Every discipline, community, or system of inquiry operates within an implicit or explicit framework and system of knowledge. I am merely articulating this universal practice with the term 'FSK.'"

Your FSK thing excludes flasifiability. You allow for mutually exclusive facts and merely assert some sort of "credibility" score for competing explanations. That's just not falsification. Your explanation of science in your FSK thing robs science of everything that makes it valuable.

Knowledge domains and fields of study existed quite happily before your FSK bullshit came into being and they will survive your death, unlike the FSK thing which will be instantly forgotten. Nothing of any worth at all is added to the cultural studies field by comparing it pointlessly to science and determining for no reason whatsoever that it is 43% as "credible" as the science of physics. It is sheer pseudery to suppose you might pull of the maneuver your AI stooge describes above.

3. Highlight Philosophical Precedents
Philosophy and Paradigms: Refer to Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in science as examples of implicit FSKs. Kuhn described how scientific knowledge progresses within paradigms that dictate methods, questions, and interpretations.
Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism can be understood as an FSK, where human cognition structures knowledge through categories and principles.
Epistemology: Epistemologists often discuss "frameworks" or "systems" of justification, making the idea of FSK a recognized concept in philosophical inquiry.

"The notion of frameworks and systems guiding knowledge is not new. Philosophical traditions, from Kant to Kuhn, have long recognized the structured nature of human knowledge."

If you were actually only discussing the role of knowledge claims within frameworks of shared understandings and cultural paradigms then that would be fine. But you are only doing any of that so that you can perform an epistemological miracle by hallucinating facts into being to support moral values as if they were entitites on an equal footing with, of all things, the moon. That is not at all what Kuhn was up to and you are not able to piggy back your dumb theory onto those of sane predecessors this way.

4. Frame FSK as an Explicit Articulation
Acknowledge that while the term FSK may not be commonly used, it is simply an explicit articulation of a widespread and intuitive concept.
Explain that articulating this concept with precision can help make it easier to analyze and discuss the structure of knowledge.

"The term 'FSK' is my way of explicitly articulating a common and widely observed reality: that all knowledge operates within structured frameworks and systems. Naming this concept makes it easier to discuss and analyze."

You haven't really explained your FSK theory to the AI. In fact you have never done a full description of it anywhere. You probably couldn't do it. The theory you bring everything back to serves a much broader purpose than the one your pet computer is describing here.

5. Invite Constructive Engagement
Challenge your accuser to provide examples of knowledge or cognition that do not rely on any framework or system.
Encourage them to critically assess whether FSK is genuinely an invention or a descriptive reality.

"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

This approach reinforces your position while demonstrating that the concept of FSK is grounded in well-established practices and philosophical insights. By framing FSK as a clarification of what is already common, you disarm accusations of inventing it.

This move is stupid and pointless. Unless you are willing to shed all the weird stuff in your FSK theory by going back to first order principles and rebuilding the entire thing using only what you can successfully argue for (without needing to claim special exemptions from basic logical principles like the excluded middle) you can only fail by drawing attention to the ways in which your FSK theory is not the sane slice of normality you are mispresenting it as here.

[attofishpi]

Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

AGAIN:

What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.

Also, explain the ranking system..

[Iwannaplato]

Many people believe in something that could be called an FSK. But they mean different things by framework, system, knowledge. You have come up with your own specific model and your own specific acronym or really acronyms.

And then:

You really needed an AI to help you respond to that?????????

And of course the AI does not know how you actually use the term in context in arguments, and how you have communicated about it. It's like you asked a stranger for a reference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

AGAIN:
What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.
Also, explain the ranking system..

Suppose your specialist insist you must have a surgery, would you choose the qualified surgeon in a reputable hospital [based on the medical science FSK] or the shaman down the road [Shaman medicine FSK]?
If you are normal average rational modern human, you are likely to opt for the qualified surgeon.
What is the reason for choosing the the qualified surgeon?
The reason is you have relied at least an intuitive implicit ranking system.
I am proposing we extract out the ranking system and made it explicit so that whatever the decision made, it is objective and transparent.

I am not suggesting we do a ranking for every decision to opt for one choice over another but it should be applicable to all critical human issues.

The FSK ranking is critical for my claim 'Morality is Objective' to be transparent as based on a morality-proper FSK which credibility and objectivity are as close and possible to the scientific FSK as the gold standard.

[attofishpi]

AGAIN:
What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.
Also, explain the ranking system..

Suppose your specialist insist you must have a surgery, would you choose the qualified surgeon in a reputable hospital [based on the medical science FSK] or the shaman down the road [Shaman medicine FSK]?
If you are normal average rational modern human, you are likely to opt for the qualified surgeon.
What is the reason for choosing the the qualified surgeon?
The reason is you have relied at least an intuitive implicit ranking system.
I am proposing we extract out the ranking system and made it explicit so that whatever the decision made, it is objective and transparent.

I am not suggesting we do a ranking for every decision to opt for one choice over another but it should be applicable to all critical human issues.

The FSK ranking is critical for my claim 'Morality is Objective' to be transparent as based on a morality-proper FSK which credibility and objectivity are as close and possible to the scientific FSK as the gold standard.

Veritas, do you ever read what you are being questioned about?

You state: "..the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom."

Now I want you to think rationally and apply your critical thinking skills to consider if it truly is a good idea to include the concept of "wisdom" within the "FSK" thang.

I am asking WHY "wisdom" is included?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many people believe in something that could be called an FSK. But they mean different things by framework, system, knowledge. You have come up with your own specific model and your own specific acronym or really acronyms.

And then:
You really needed an AI to help you respond to that?????????

And of course the AI does not know how you actually use the term in context in arguments, and how you have communicated about it. It's like you asked a stranger for a reference.

I have had loads of discussions with AI with reference to 'what is a FSK'.

See here:
What is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31889

The terms framework, system & knowledge used are their common meanings.
I am just combining them into an effective concept which is exercised in practice.

What's wrong with using AI in this case.
Most of the time, AI is merely parroting what I already know and it is merely helping me to make fast retrieval and to make clearer presentations [given my handicap with English].

[Veritas Aequitas]

AGAIN:
What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.
Also, explain the ranking system..

Suppose your specialist insist you must have a surgery, would you choose the qualified surgeon in a reputable hospital [based on the medical science FSK] or the shaman down the road [Shaman medicine FSK]?
If you are normal average rational modern human, you are likely to opt for the qualified surgeon.
What is the reason for choosing the the qualified surgeon?
The reason is you have relied at least an intuitive implicit ranking system.
I am proposing we extract out the ranking system and made it explicit so that whatever the decision made, it is objective and transparent.

I am not suggesting we do a ranking for every decision to opt for one choice over another but it should be applicable to all critical human issues.

The FSK ranking is critical for my claim 'Morality is Objective' to be transparent as based on a morality-proper FSK which credibility and objectivity are as close and possible to the scientific FSK as the gold standard.

Veritas, do you ever read what you are being questioned about?

You state: "..the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom."

Now I want you to think rationally and apply your critical thinking skills to consider if it truly is a good idea to include the concept of "wisdom" within the "FSK" thang.

I am asking WHY "wisdom" is included?

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity, sophont) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpreting and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.

The above wisdom is applied in formulating the FSK ranking system.

Also, isn't it a wiser move [wisdom in action] to choose the qualified surgeon over the 'unqualified' shaman.

[attofishpi]

Veritas, do you ever read what you are being questioned about?

You state: "..the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom."

Now I want you to think rationally and apply your critical thinking skills to consider if it truly is a good idea to include the concept of "wisdom" within the "FSK" thang.

I am asking WHY "wisdom" is included?

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity, sophont) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpreting and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.

The above wisdom is applied in formulating the FSK ranking system.

Also, isn't it a wiser move [wisdom in action] to choose the qualified surgeon over the 'unqualified' shaman.

Sure, it works in this instance.

Is it wise to believe there is a GOD throughout your life and act accordingly, or is it wise to NOT believe there is a GOD throughout your life, and act with that in mind?