FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 4:20 pm
Your FSK thing excludes falsifiability. 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.
Your Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language are outdated thus you have no credibility with your critique of the human-based FSK concept which is implicit in all fields of knowledge.
If you ever condemned pseudoscience, astrology or theism against the credibility and objective of science per se, what is your basis?
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:56 am
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?
What kind of nonsense is this?
The question was very simple, and key to the important part of your "FSK", wisdom..
Again: 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?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:13 am
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?
Whatever your answer, what is your objective basis in arriving at your choice of answer?
To be objective and transparent you will need to present your FSK in deciding your answer.
If I say, "water is H20" it is because it is based on the general science-chemistry FSK.
It is ranked as credible and objective because the criteria used is 'empirical evidence' testability, repeatability and others grounded on rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
If you don't agree with me you can test it within the conditions of specific general science-chemistry FSK and get the same repeated results every time.
As you can see, the identity of the specific FSK is critical in this case; it cannot be any other FSK other than the specified one, i.e. the general science-chemistry FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:56 am
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?
What kind of nonsense is this?
The question was very simple, and key to the important part of your "FSK", wisdom..
Again: 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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:56 am
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?
What kind of nonsense is this?
The question was very simple, and key to the important part of your "FSK", wisdom..
Again: 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?
The above was not addressed to your post.
Is your continued avoidance of the question because your FSK fails when part of its core framework, in this case "wisdom" is being questioned?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:04 am
What kind of nonsense is this?
The question was very simple, and key to the important part of your "FSK", wisdom..
Again: 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?
The above was not addressed to your post.
Is your continued avoidance of the question because your FSK fails when part of its core framework, in this case "wisdom" is being questioned?
Saying, and claiming, 'knowledge or cognition relies on a framework or system', is the exact same as saying, and claiming, 'EVERY thing relies on a framework or system'.
OBVIOUSLY 'knowledge' or 'cognition' relies on a framework, or system. And, the studying of how things work may well be the best, most reliable, and/or most credible system, or framework, for gaining and obtaining True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge. However, 'science', or the 'studying of how things work', can ALSO BE AFFECTED by PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS, PRESUMPTIONS, and therefore CONFIRMATION BIASES.
So, 'science', itself, is NOT necessarily the best, most reliable, NOR most credible way to obtain the ACTUAL Truth of things, at all.
And, considering what the ANSWER is to the ONE and ONLY REAL 'problem', in Life, then the framework, system, or PROCESS, which IS, ACTUALLY, the BEST, MOST RELIABLE, and MOST CREDIBLE to ARRIVING AT, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING the ACTUAL Truths, in Life, which can NOT BE REFUTED, is FOUND, and REVEALED, IN the EXACT SAME PROCESS, system, or framework that IS, and WAS, INVOLVED IN ARRIVING AT, UNCOVERING, and REVEALING 'the ANSWER' to the ONE and ONLY 'REAL problem', in Life. Which IS:
How can 'we' FIND the 'answers' to ALL of 'our problems'?
And, 'the ANSWER' to 'this QUESTION' IS 'the, FINAL, ANSWER' to ALL of 'our problems'. Which, by the way, 'the way' to FINDING 'that ANSWER' is HOLDS 'the SOLUTION' to ALL of 'your problems', and thus is ALSO 'the RESOLUTION' to absolutely ALL of 'the problems', in Life.
And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one DISAGREES, or just does NOT BELIEVE, this go and 'try' and prove 'it' False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect. I KNOW I can prove this framework, system, process, or solution works EACH and EVERY TIME for ABSOLUTELY EACH and EVERY one of your human being MADE UP 'problems'. If ABSOLUTELY ANY one DOUBTS 'this', then just 'TRY ME'.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:13 am
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?
NEITHER.
WHY did you ONLY offer up two options, ONLY?
Also, BOTH of those options are the VERY OPPOSITE of BEING 'WISE'. That is; if one die either then they ARE BEING 'STUPID'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:03 am
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.
OBVIOUSLY this one is HOLDING ABSOLUTELY STEADFAST to its BELIEF that ALL so-claimed "qualified surgeons' ARE BETTER and/or KNOW MORE than ALL claimed "unqualified shamans".
This one, here, has SO MUCH MORE to LEARN, in Life.
Right then, so provide the answer to the question.
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?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:56 am
It is because your mother, father or arse said so?
What kind of nonsense is this?
But 'that' response was NOT in reply, to the question you asked.
Also, what you call 'nonsense', above here, makes a GREAT POINT.
WHATEVER you people do in 'thought' is it BECAUSE of ABSOLUTE 'logical reasoning', which ultimately can NOT be refuted, OR, just because your mommy, daddy, or someone else, told you 'some thing'?
If, and when, one was to go 'back through' over this forum what the OVERWHELMING ANSWER IS, and WILL BE, to the MAJORITY of what has been said and written, here, is plain old BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:04 am
The question was very simple, and key to the important part of your "FSK", wisdom..
your question was IDIOTIC, in the EXTREME.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:04 am
Again: 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?
NEITHER.
In Fact the WISEST thing you human beings can do IS NEITHER BELIEVE and NOT BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY THING.
SOME of you HAVE ALREADY CAUGHT ON TO this IRREFUTABLE Fact. For the 'rest of you', however, you WILL slowly CATCH UP, to 'us'.
Who if anyone in history used the expression "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)"? Summary only.
This is where you are ignorant and merely on a 'whack a mole' mode.
You should ask whether the concept "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)" is a reasonable perspective to represent knowledge then ask ChatGpt to comment on the full ChatGpt-to-me response.
Given different and inconsistent responses from ChatGpt to different users on the same issue, I am interested to know how your-ChatGpt would response to my-ChatGpt.
I believe it is good sign of improvement in philosophy [as evident throughout the history of philosophy] to coin new terms to represent reality more realistically for useful purposes to facilitate progress within humanity.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:11 am
Is your continued avoidance of the question because your FSK fails when part of its core framework, in this case "wisdom" is being questioned?
Right then, so provide the answer to the question.
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?
This one is MISBEHAVING like ALL who have been INDOCTRINATED WITHIN A CULT. That is; if 'the others' do NOT BELIEVE what I have, SUDDENLY, come to BELIEVE is true, then 'they' are NOT WISE, like 'me'.
And, this lasts until 'that one' REALIZES that what there WERE 'previously' BELIEVING was ACTUALLY NOT true, AT ALL.
Who if anyone in history used the expression "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)"? Summary only.
This is where you are ignorant and merely on a 'whack a mole' mode.
You should ask whether the concept "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)" is a reasonable perspective to represent knowledge then ask ChatGpt to comment on the full ChatGpt-to-me response.
Given different and inconsistent responses from ChatGpt to different users on the same issue, I am interested to know how your-ChatGpt would response to my-ChatGpt.
I believe it is good sign of improvement in philosophy [as evident throughout the history of philosophy] to coin new terms to represent reality more realistically for useful purposes to facilitate progress within humanity.
Yes, nobody is using this FSK thangy, definitely Veritas has made it up for himself..
ME: Who if anyone in history used the expression "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)"? Summary only.
GPT:
The phrase "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK) does not appear to have been prominently used in a specific historical or philosophical context by a notable individual. However, it aligns conceptually with ideas from philosophers and theorists who explored systems of knowledge, such as Michel Foucault in The Archaeology of Knowledge. Foucault investigated how systems and frameworks define the conditions for knowledge production and discourse within specific historical periods. He emphasized that discursive formations and relations establish how knowledge is structured and understood in context
ERIC
Wikipedia
.
In education and epistemology, similar ideas about knowledge frameworks have been discussed, notably through constructivist theories influenced by thinkers like Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, who focused on how individuals and societies construct knowledge systems through interaction and development
ERIC
.
If you have a more specific application of this phrase in mind, feel free to clarify!
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:11 am
Is your continued avoidance of the question because your FSK fails when part of its core framework, in this case "wisdom" is being questioned?
Right then, so provide the answer to the question. 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?
It depend on one's psychological states and to what degree one is affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis. Terror Management Theory viewtopic.php?t=43101
If one is heavily affected by the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis and has no way out of it, then it is optimal and wise to believe there is a God throughout one's life and act accordingly.
If one has other non-theistic alternatives to deal the subliminal terror of TMT and the existential crisis, then there is no need to believe in a God.
