FSK is Not My Invention

[FlashDangerpants]

Please try to remember what position you are defending at a given time. You cannot say that your FSK thing gives a descriptive account of something if the FSK thing is actually changing the thing. Again, that's extremely simple logic.

To that end... There is nobody in the world except you that thinks comparing medieval history and reflexology is useful, or meaningful, or that a method to even do so exists, so the FSK thing for comparing KFC-buckets is not a usual part of our epistemological doings.

For the purposes of the thing I was taking you to task for, namely the whole "clarify the FSK thing as common fact" thing, you were supposed to be trying to hide how weird you KFC-buckets thing is, so bringing the met-KFC into it was a mistake to be honest.

You are stuck with the fundamentalistic ideology of philosophical realism [an absolute mind-independent thing] which is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Whatever is FSK-cally real is not permanent, e.g. FSK-ed scientific facts based on FSER of reality.

Note sure where you are heading with "common fact".
My point is, all [no exceptions] fields of knowledge are contingent upon a FSK, as such it is a common fact, i.e. FSK-fact.

Oh. My. God. This is what happens when you let an idiot use GPT to write everything for him, he can't remember what crap he's been spiting out. Here's the quote... please note the bit where it suggests that your FSK thing is a descriptive term for what humans have always done. I have been trying to get you to realise the insanely obvious fact that it is not that, not at all.

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.

To that end... There is nobody in the world except you that thinks comparing medieval history and reflexology is useful, or meaningful, or that a method to even do so exists, so the FSK thing for comparing KFC-buckets is not a usual part of our epistemological doings.

It is not a normal part of our systems or frameworks of actually knowing things and justifying claims to have a means to compare the utterly unrelated. So the effort to "clarify the FSK thing as common fact" is clearly a failure.

Strawman, where did I ever imply simply comparing the knowledge of medieval history and reflexology is useful, or meaningful.
When we compare different FSKs, it with reference to their degrees of credibility and objectivity plus only where the comparison is relevant and significant.

Generally we do not compare the degrees of credibility and objectivity between medieval history with reflexology.

However, it is critical to compare the degrees of credibility and objectivity between the theistic-creationism FS with science-cosmology FSK; the scientific-FSK and the pseudoscience-FSKs, medical-science-FSK with Shamanic-medicine-FSK and other comparisons which has an impact on the individual's humanity's well being and flourishing.

Generally we do not compare them at all. Real people don't do that. You use whichever you believe is appropriate to a circumstance. Nobody needs an autistic sorted list of nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note sure where you are heading with "common fact".
My point is, all [no exceptions] fields of knowledge are contingent upon a FSK, as such it is a common fact, i.e. FSK-fact.

Oh. My. God. This is what happens when you let an idiot use GPT to write everything for him, he can't remember what crap he's been spiting out. Here's the quote... please note the bit where it suggests that your FSK thing is a descriptive term for what humans have always done. I have been trying to get you to realise the insanely obvious fact that it is not that, not at all.

I still not sure what is your fuss about.
I understand 'descriptive' to be "serving or seeking to describe".

I asked ChatGpt to explain:

ChatGpt Explained:

The statement:
"This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge"

means that the concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is not a novel creation but rather a way to articulate or describe a process that has always been present in human cognition and knowledge-building practices. Let’s break this down:

1. What Does "Descriptive" Mean in This Context?
Descriptive (Serving to Describe): In this context, "descriptive" means the term FSK is being used to describe or explain a process that exists and functions in reality, rather than prescribing what should happen.
Not Normative or Invented: The FSK is not being proposed as a new system or method but is instead a way to identify and make explicit something inherent in how humans approach knowledge.

2. Why is the FSK a Descriptive Term?
Humans have always used frameworks to structure and validate their understanding of the world. For example:

Science: The scientific method is a framework involving observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and validation.
Law: Legal systems rely on structured frameworks to interpret laws, precedents, and evidence.
Culture: Even informal practices, like table manners, operate within culturally defined frameworks.
The term FSK simply names and clarifies this general feature of human cognition and intellectual activity—it doesn’t invent it.

3. FSK as "What Humans Have Always Done"
The idea of using criteria, rules, or systems to organize knowledge is an inherent characteristic of human cognition. Examples include:

Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle creating taxonomies for animals and logic.
Religious systems structuring moral codes and worldviews.
Modern scientific communities developing peer-review systems.
All of these are examples of humans naturally constructing and relying on FSKs to make sense of reality and build coherent bodies of knowledge.

4. Distinction from Descriptive Ethics
Your interlocutor may link "descriptive" to descriptive ethics, which studies how people actually behave or believe in ethical situations, rather than prescribing what they ought to do. However, this is not the same as the use of "descriptive" here.

In the case of the FSK, "descriptive" means explaining or articulating how humans systematically structure knowledge—not observing ethical behavior.

5. Why This Matters for Your Thesis
By calling the FSK a "descriptive term," the emphasis is on the naturalness and ubiquity of frameworks in human thought. This reinforces the argument that the FSK is not a radical or artificial construct but a conceptual tool to explain something that already exists and has always existed.

If your interlocutor challenges the use of "descriptive," you could clarify that:
The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.

However, it is critical to compare the degrees of credibility and objectivity between the theistic-creationism FS with science-cosmology FSK; the scientific-FSK and the pseudoscience-FSKs, medical-science-FSK with Shamanic-medicine-FSK and other comparisons which has an impact on the individual's humanity's well being and flourishing.

Generally we do not compare them at all. Real people don't do that. You use whichever you believe is appropriate to a circumstance. Nobody needs an autistic sorted list of nonsense.

The above examples of comparison are common but usually done implicitly and not explicitly.
I am proposing to make it more explicit, thus more rational, transparent and objective.

[Flannel Jesus]

I am proposing to make it more explicit, thus more rational, transparent and objective.

And yet when people ask you to be explicit about your fsks, instead of just doing it you insult them .

You're hypocritical about your own proposal. Proposal rejected.

[FlashDangerpants]

Note sure where you are heading with "common fact".
My point is, all [no exceptions] fields of knowledge are contingent upon a FSK, as such it is a common fact, i.e. FSK-fact.

Oh. My. God. This is what happens when you let an idiot use GPT to write everything for him, he can't remember what crap he's been spiting out. Here's the quote... please note the bit where it suggests that your FSK thing is a descriptive term for what humans have always done. I have been trying to get you to realise the insanely obvious fact that it is not that, not at all.

I still not sure what is your fuss about.
I understand 'descriptive' to be "serving or seeking to describe".

Your account isn't descriptive, it isn't even close. The common sense of fact is something you explicitly deny. You must realise it is counter-intuitive to tell people that the moon only exists when people say it does. The reason it is counter-intuitive is that it runs counter to the common sense meaning of fact.

It is beyond absurd that you are trying to gaslight me with this bullshit.

I asked ChatGpt to explain:

ChatGpt Explained:

The statement:
"This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge"

means that the concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is not a novel creation but rather a way to articulate or describe a process that has always been present in human cognition and knowledge-building practices. Let’s break this down:

1. What Does "Descriptive" Mean in This Context?
Descriptive (Serving to Describe): In this context, "descriptive" means the term FSK is being used to describe or explain a process that exists and functions in reality, rather than prescribing what should happen.
Not Normative or Invented: The FSK is not being proposed as a new system or method but is instead a way to identify and make explicit something inherent in how humans approach knowledge.

2. Why is the FSK a Descriptive Term?
Humans have always used frameworks to structure and validate their understanding of the world. For example:

Science: The scientific method is a framework involving observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and validation.
Law: Legal systems rely on structured frameworks to interpret laws, precedents, and evidence.
Culture: Even informal practices, like table manners, operate within culturally defined frameworks.
The term FSK simply names and clarifies this general feature of human cognition and intellectual activity—it doesn’t invent it.

3. FSK as "What Humans Have Always Done"
The idea of using criteria, rules, or systems to organize knowledge is an inherent characteristic of human cognition. Examples include:

Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle creating taxonomies for animals and logic.
Religious systems structuring moral codes and worldviews.
Modern scientific communities developing peer-review systems.
All of these are examples of humans naturally constructing and relying on FSKs to make sense of reality and build coherent bodies of knowledge.

4. Distinction from Descriptive Ethics
Your interlocutor may link "descriptive" to descriptive ethics, which studies how people actually behave or believe in ethical situations, rather than prescribing what they ought to do. However, this is not the same as the use of "descriptive" here.

In the case of the FSK, "descriptive" means explaining or articulating how humans systematically structure knowledge—not observing ethical behavior.

5. Why This Matters for Your Thesis
By calling the FSK a "descriptive term," the emphasis is on the naturalness and ubiquity of frameworks in human thought. This reinforces the argument that the FSK is not a radical or artificial construct but a conceptual tool to explain something that already exists and has always existed.

If your interlocutor challenges the use of "descriptive," you could clarify that:
The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.

However, it is critical to compare the degrees of credibility and objectivity between the theistic-creationism FS with science-cosmology FSK; the scientific-FSK and the pseudoscience-FSKs, medical-science-FSK with Shamanic-medicine-FSK and other comparisons which has an impact on the individual's humanity's well being and flourishing.

Generally we do not compare them at all. Real people don't do that. You use whichever you believe is appropriate to a circumstance. Nobody needs an autistic sorted list of nonsense.

The above examples of comparison are common but usually done implicitly and not explicitly.
I am proposing to make it more explicit, thus more rational, transparent and objective.

You are trying to replace the normal set of discourses in which we discuss various different things in different ways appropriate to the sorts of statement and question involved as something else. Your thing is a a hierarchy of all the possible subjects that doesn't exist for anybody else and really makes no sense at all. This is the FSK beast you have wrought, a big all encompassing framework of all the subjects and topics, a giant edifice of bullshit that has only a passing resemblance to normal talk of discourses, domains and fields.

It's not real. Nobody else works with these things this way. It's prescriptive not descriptive.

If you think other people actually secretly agree with you that it makes sense to say that the rules of fencing are only 32% credible, making them dramatically inferior to zoology, you are massively mistaken.

[seeds]

"FSK is Not My Invention"

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.

I have no problem with using ChatGPT, especially for funzies like messing with little V's delicate (and highly guarded) ego...

Me:
Do you know what the acronym "FSK" stands for?

ChatGPT:
Yes, "FSK" can stand for different things depending on the context. Here are some of the most common meanings:

Frequency-Shift Keying: A digital modulation technique used in telecommunications where data is transmitted by changing the frequency of a carrier wave.

Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft: The German motion picture rating system, similar to the MPAA in the U.S.

Federal Skill Category: Sometimes used in government or workplace contexts to describe skill classifications.

Funktionen-Sicherheits-Klasse: Related to functional safety standards in engineering (especially in German-speaking contexts).

If you have a specific context in mind, let me know, and I can narrow it down!

Me:
Do you know what the acronyms "FS," "FSC," "FSER," "FSERC," stand for?

ChatGPT:
Here are possible meanings for each acronym, depending on the context:

FS:

• 1. File System: Refers to how data is stored and organized on a storage device.
  
  2. Full Scale: In measurement or instrumentation, the maximum limit of a system.
  
  3. Financial Services: Used in banking or finance sectors.
  
  4. Field Service: Refers to services provided at a client's location.
  
  5. Free Safety: A position in American football.

FSC:

• 1. Forest Stewardship Council: An organization promoting sustainable forestry practices.
  
  2. Financial Services Commission: A regulatory body in some countries for financial systems.
  
  3. Federal Supply Classification: A system used by the U.S. government for categorizing supplies and services.
  
  4. Fire Support Coordinator: A military term for coordinating fire support.

FSER:

• 1. Freestanding Emergency Room: An emergency medical facility independent of a hospital.
  
  2. Field-Service Engineer Report: A report compiled by engineers working on-site.
  
  3. Facility Safety and Environmental Review: Used in safety and compliance contexts.

FSERC:

• 1. Freestanding Emergency Room Center: A specific term for standalone emergency medical centers.
  
  2. Field-Service Engineering and Repair Center: Used in technical industries for maintenance facilities.
  
  3. Financial Stability and Economic Research Council: A term that could be used in financial or policy contexts.

If you share the specific industry or context, I can provide a more tailored explanation!

Me:
My interlocutor on a philosophy forum who goes by the moniker of "Veritas Aequitas" (VA), has evidently had many discussions with you regarding what he calls a "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK). My questions are, first, do you recall having any conversations involving the acronyms "FSK" or "FS," "FSC," "FSER," "FSERC" with anyone whatsoever? And second, have you (in your extensive programming) ever come across the acronym "FSK" being used to represent the phrase "Framework and System of Knowledge"?

ChatGPT:
To answer your questions:

I don’t retain memory of prior conversations unless explicitly noted within this session, so I cannot directly recall specific discussions with anyone, including "Veritas Aequitas," about "FSK" or the other acronyms you mentioned.

Regarding "FSK" as "Framework and System of Knowledge," I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming. It seems likely to be a personalized or specialized concept created by your interlocutor, "Veritas Aequitas," or within a specific philosophical or academic context.

The "...specific philosophical context..." to which ChatGPT is referring is located within the confines of VA's imagination and in whatever philosophy forum he tries to peddle his "...personalized/specialized concept...". And that would include his private conversations with ChatGPT who, until Veritas Aequitas came along, had never before heard of VA's specific use (invention) of his array of proprietary acronyms.

The point is that it is ridiculous for VA to insist that he did not invent the highly specific system of acronyms (FS, FSK, FSC, FSER, FSERC, etc.) he is trying to foist on us and the AIs - a system that no one (at least no one around here) is ever going to adopt.

My advice to VA is to go back to complaining about Islam, or God, or something similar, and stop wasting so much time and effort on this FSK nonsense.

And that's because as Flannel Jesus once pointed out "...nobody cares..."
_______

[Atla]

I never really paid attention to this FSK talk. Let's see, VA 100% can't process logic. So he may imagine that there are all these independent FSK soap bubbles floating in the ether, and each one of them is its own little world. I guess a normal person would automatically arrange these "FSKs" into some kind of overarching system, and then work out inconsistencies, and just call the whole structure knowledge, to a normal person these FSK things couldn't be independent. But a normal person has logic and VA has no logic, VA can't arrange his FSK bubbles into a system.

Guess all he can do is rate the floating FSK soap bubbles. He has no systematic way of rating anything because he has no logic, his rating method is another independently floating bubble. But he was told that the science FSK bubble is more shiny than the other bubbles, so that will somehow rate the other bubbles for him.

Each bubble manufactures its own facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I still not sure what is your fuss about.
I understand 'descriptive' to be "serving or seeking to describe".

Your account isn't descriptive, it isn't even close. The common sense of fact is something you explicitly deny. You must realise it is counter-intuitive to tell people that the moon only exists when people say it does. The reason it is counter-intuitive is that it runs counter to the common sense meaning of fact.

Strawman.
ChatGpt already explained [see below] what is meant by 'descriptive' i.e. it is merely explaining and describing that FSK are a common occurrence, event, methodology within fields of knowledge.

• Fact = something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact

ChatGpt Explained:

The statement:
"This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge"

means that the concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is not a novel creation but rather a way to articulate or describe a process that has always been present in human cognition and knowledge-building practices. Let’s break this down:

1. What Does "Descriptive" Mean in This Context?
Descriptive (Serving to Describe): In this context, "descriptive" means the term FSK is being used to describe or explain a process that exists and functions in reality, rather than prescribing what should happen.
Not Normative or Invented: The FSK is not being proposed as a new system or method but is instead a way to identify and make explicit something inherent in how humans approach knowledge.

2. Why is the FSK a Descriptive Term?
Humans have always used frameworks to structure and validate their understanding of the world. For example:

Science: The scientific method is a framework involving observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and validation.
Law: Legal systems rely on structured frameworks to interpret laws, precedents, and evidence.
Culture: Even informal practices, like table manners, operate within culturally defined frameworks.
The term FSK simply names and clarifies this general feature of human cognition and intellectual activity—it doesn’t invent it.

3. FSK as "What Humans Have Always Done"
The idea of using criteria, rules, or systems to organize knowledge is an inherent characteristic of human cognition. Examples include:

Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle creating taxonomies for animals and logic.
Religious systems structuring moral codes and worldviews.
Modern scientific communities developing peer-review systems.
All of these are examples of humans naturally constructing and relying on FSKs to make sense of reality and build coherent bodies of knowledge.

4. Distinction from Descriptive Ethics
Your interlocutor may link "descriptive" to descriptive ethics, which studies how people actually behave or believe in ethical situations, rather than prescribing what they ought to do. However, this is not the same as the use of "descriptive" here.

In the case of the FSK, "descriptive" means explaining or articulating how humans systematically structure knowledge—not observing ethical behavior.

5. Why This Matters for Your Thesis
By calling the FSK a "descriptive term," the emphasis is on the naturalness and ubiquity of frameworks in human thought. This reinforces the argument that the FSK is not a radical or artificial construct but a conceptual tool to explain something that already exists and has always existed.

If your interlocutor challenges the use of "descriptive," you could clarify that:
The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.

You are trying to replace the normal set of discourses in which we discuss various different things in different ways appropriate to the sorts of statement and question involved as something else.
Your thing is a a hierarchy of all the possible subjects that doesn't exist for anybody else and really makes no sense at all. This is the FSK beast you have wrought, a big all encompassing framework of all the subjects and topics, a giant edifice of bullshit that has only a passing resemblance to normal talk of discourses, domains and fields.

It's not real. Nobody else works with these things this way. It's prescriptive not descriptive.

ChatGpt already explained above how a FSK work in the real world and provided examples.
The obvious is the scientific FSK with its scientific methods, principles, assumptions, peer review and whatever conditions that qualify it as scientific.

If you think other people actually secretly agree with you that it makes sense to say that the rules of fencing are only 32% credible, making them dramatically inferior to zoology, you are massively mistaken.

Strawman. That is a very stupid sense of comparison, i.e. fencing to zoology.

The comparison must be relevant, e.g. the credibility and objectivity of a specific pseudoscience FSK at 5% is dramatically inferior to science as the gold standard indexed at 100%.
or
the alchemy FSK at 5% compared to the 90% of science-chemistry FSL
the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%
and so on with comparable comparisons.

[Atla]

the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%

Let's take the scientific "framework and system of knowledge" as the 100% rational and objective ruler. Rate Kantian empirical realism and non-Kantian philosophical realism, compared to said ruler. Summary only.

Using the scientific framework as the standard for rationality and objectivity:

Kantian Empirical Realism
Rating: ~70%

Reasoning: Kant aligns with scientific principles by emphasizing that knowledge is grounded in experience and structured by universal categories of thought. However, his reliance on a priori forms (space, time, causality) introduces a subjective element that diverges from the purely empirical stance of science.

Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: ~85%

Reasoning: Philosophical realism closely parallels scientific objectivity by positing that an external, mind-independent reality exists. While it lacks the structured methodologies and empirical verification of science, its commitment to realism aligns with the scientific assumption of an observable, external world.

In summary, both frameworks have strengths, but Kantian realism's subjectivity places it further from the scientific ruler than non-Kantian realism.

As expected.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Me:
My interlocutor on a philosophy forum who goes by the moniker of "Veritas Aequitas" (VA), has evidently had many discussions with you regarding what he calls a "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK). My questions are, first, do you recall having any conversations involving the acronyms "FSK" or "FS," "FSC," "FSER," "FSERC" with anyone whatsoever? And second, have you (in your extensive programming) ever come across the acronym "FSK" being used to represent the phrase "Framework and System of Knowledge"?

ChatGPT:
To answer your questions:

I don’t retain memory of prior conversations unless explicitly noted within this session, so I cannot directly recall specific discussions with anyone, including "Veritas Aequitas," about "FSK" or the other acronyms you mentioned.

Regarding "FSK" as "Framework and System of Knowledge," I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming. It seems likely to be a personalized or specialized concept created by your interlocutor, "Veritas Aequitas," or within a specific philosophical or academic context.

[/quote]
The above exchange merely reflect your ignorance of how AI work and you are exposing yourself as a fool with the above rhetoric.

YOUR ChatGpt stated "I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming."

If you are familiar with ChatGpt, you could ask it to survey "Framework and System of Knowledge" from the internet and one of the search is this:

• "Philosophy Now Forum
  https://forum.philosophynow.org
  27 Jan 2021 — A Framework and System of Knowledge is an imperative structure and mechanism as a ground in the establishment of what is Fact."

Therein is a quote from ChatGpt,

ChatGPT wrote:
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science.
It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.
..
..

[Veritas Aequitas]

the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%

Let's take the scientific "framework and system of knowledge" as the 100% rational and objective ruler. Rate Kantian empirical realism and non-Kantian philosophical realism, compared to said ruler. Summary only.

Using the scientific framework as the standard for rationality and objectivity:

Kantian Empirical Realism
Rating: ~70%

Reasoning: Kant aligns with scientific principles by emphasizing that knowledge is grounded in experience and structured by universal categories of thought. However, his reliance on a priori forms (space, time, causality) introduces a subjective element that diverges from the purely empirical stance of science.

Non-Kantian Philosophical Realism
Rating: ~85%

Reasoning: Philosophical realism closely parallels scientific objectivity by positing that an external, mind-independent reality exists. While it lacks the structured methodologies and empirical verification of science, its commitment to realism aligns with the scientific assumption of an observable, external world.

In summary, both frameworks have strengths, but Kantian realism's subjectivity places it further from the scientific ruler than non-Kantian realism.

As expected.

Nah, that is based on your ignorance and biasness.
The above is based merely on scientific realism.

You should ask ChatGpt to rate it on the two basis of,
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon
then on
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon

The ask ChatGpt which
1. Scientific realism - assume noumenon or
2. Scientific antirealism - no noumenon
is more realistic?

[seeds]

YOUR ChatGpt stated "I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming."

If you are familiar with ChatGpt, you could ask it to survey "Framework and System of Knowledge" from the internet and one of the search is this:

• "Philosophy Now Forum
  https://forum.philosophynow.org
  27 Jan 2021 — A Framework and System of Knowledge is an imperative structure and mechanism as a ground in the establishment of what is Fact."

Therein is a quote from ChatGpt,

ChatGPT wrote:
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science.
It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.
..
..

First, learn how to do a link that takes a person to the intended post.

And secondly, did ChatGPT provide that answer before or after you gave it your own personal definition of the acronym - FSK?

And lastly, reread this...

My advice to VA is to go back to complaining about Islam, or God, or something similar, and stop wasting so much time and effort on this FSK nonsense.

And that's because as Flannel Jesus once pointed out "...nobody cares..."

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

YOUR ChatGpt stated "I have not encountered this particular usage in my training or programming."

If you are familiar with ChatGpt, you could ask it to survey "Framework and System of Knowledge" from the internet and one of the search is this:

• "Philosophy Now Forum
  https://forum.philosophynow.org
  27 Jan 2021 — A Framework and System of Knowledge is an imperative structure and mechanism as a ground in the establishment of what is Fact."

Therein is a quote from ChatGpt,

ChatGPT wrote:
Yes, the term "A Framework and System of Knowledge" is a meaningful and valid phrase to describe the structured organization and interrelatedness of knowledge in a particular field or discipline, such as science.
It acknowledges that knowledge is not just a collection of isolated facts, but is rather an interconnected system of ideas and concepts that can be organized and studied within a framework or structure.
..
..

First, learn how to do a link that takes a person to the intended post.

And secondly, did ChatGPT provide that answer before or after you gave it your own personal definition of the acronym - FSK?

And lastly, reread this...

My advice to VA is to go back to complaining about Islam, or God, or something similar, and stop wasting so much time and effort on this FSK nonsense.

And that's because as Flannel Jesus once pointed out "...nobody cares..."

_______

Here is the link:
viewtopic.php?t=31889

Not sure, I don't recall giving it my definition.

You can test it yourself.
Ask what does 'Framework and System of Knowledge" represent in the context of a philosophical discussion.
If ChatGpt does not present what I claimed, but based on merely what it trained on up to Sept 2021 or some time then, ask ChatGpt to do a search in the internet based on the current state.
It will likely arrive at my-ChatGpt's definition.

And that's because as Flannel Jesus once pointed out "...nobody cares..."

Did I ever expect you to care?
I don't give a damn whether you care or not.
I have already stated many times, I post here for my own selfish interests without any expectations from others.
If anyone respond to my posts, that is at their discretion for whatever their interests, I am indifferent with having my own expectations from others.

[FlashDangerpants]

I still not sure what is your fuss about.
I understand 'descriptive' to be "serving or seeking to describe".

Your account isn't descriptive, it isn't even close. The common sense of fact is something you explicitly deny. You must realise it is counter-intuitive to tell people that the moon only exists when people say it does. The reason it is counter-intuitive is that it runs counter to the common sense meaning of fact.

Strawman.
ChatGpt already explained [see below] what is meant by 'descriptive' i.e. it is merely explaining and describing that FSK are a common occurrence, event, methodology within fields of knowledge.

• Fact = something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact

ChatGpt Explained:

If your interlocutor challenges the use of "descriptive," you could clarify that:
The term "descriptive" is being used in its broad sense, meaning "serving to describe" a universal phenomenon in human cognition, not in the narrower sense used in ethics or philosophy.

You are wasting my time with stupid shit. Either you must learn to form arguments without relying on a confused calculator to do all the lifting for you, or you will fail even more completely than you managed to prior to relying on AI to think for you.

You are trying to replace the normal set of discourses in which we discuss various different things in different ways appropriate to the sorts of statement and question involved as something else.
Your thing is a a hierarchy of all the possible subjects that doesn't exist for anybody else and really makes no sense at all. This is the FSK beast you have wrought, a big all encompassing framework of all the subjects and topics, a giant edifice of bullshit that has only a passing resemblance to normal talk of discourses, domains and fields.

It's not real. Nobody else works with these things this way. It's prescriptive not descriptive.

ChatGpt already explained above how a FSK work in the real world and provided examples.
The obvious is the scientific FSK with its scientific methods, principles, assumptions, peer review and whatever conditions that qualify it as scientific.

You haven't explained the FSK stuff to the computer correctly. I have covered already some of the reasons why your FSK thing is not the natural description you persist in bullshitting us about.

This is before even invoking all the other mad shit you have done, like the thing where nothing at all is completely true or untrue. If you ever tried to explain the FSK thing properly in one go, you would look like a madman and an idiot.

If you think other people actually secretly agree with you that it makes sense to say that the rules of fencing are only 32% credible, making them dramatically inferior to zoology, you are massively mistaken.

Strawman. That is a very stupid sense of comparison, i.e. fencing to zoology.

It's not a strawman at all, your FSK thing does exactly what I said and you have confirmed may times that it offers a numerical measurement to do so. Also you have already confirmed that it works by providing a list of "All the FSKs" and their scores, meaning that it is for comparing all the FSKs. Please don't lie to me.

The comparison must be relevant, e.g. the credibility and objectivity of a specific pseudoscience FSK at 5% is dramatically inferior to science as the gold standard indexed at 100%.
or
the alchemy FSK at 5% compared to the 90% of science-chemistry FSL
the philosophical realism FSK at 10% compared to the Empirical Realism FSK at 80%
and so on with comparable comparisons.

What's the FSK that establishes this relevance? What number have you given it? Your own FSK thing is routinely pseudoscientific.

All of those numbers you've written there are insane and they simply prove my point that your FSK thing does not describe any normal activity, it entirely your creation, those numbers are only for you to use and only for you to create. You are playing an autistic sorting game and nobody else is involved.

[Gary Childress]

FSK is not my invention

Is it possible that FSK was a term coined by one of your professors in a college course you took? I asked ChatGPT about FSK, "framework and system of knowledge" and it didn't seem to know what it was--at least not FSK referring to Framework and System of Knowledge. FSK doesn't seem to be a popular phrase used in philosophy. Otherwise, I would think ChatGPT would be aware of it.

My conversation with ChatGPT:

Gary:
Is the term "Framework or System of Knowledge" (also known as FSK) a technical term used in philosophy or science? Have you ever heard of the term before? And if so, when did you learn of it?

ChatGPT:
The term "Framework or System of Knowledge" (FSK) is not widely recognized as a formal technical term in philosophy, science, or any specific academic discipline, at least not in a standardized way comparable to other established terms. However, the phrase itself is descriptive and could be used in various contexts to describe structured ways of organizing or understanding knowledge.

In Philosophy:
While the concept of a framework or system of knowledge is central to epistemology (the study of knowledge), the specific phrase "Framework or System of Knowledge" does not appear prominently in philosophical literature. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who discussed systems of knowledge in works like the Critique of Pure Reason, or Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the idea of "paradigms" in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, might resonate with the idea but do not use this exact term.
In Science:
In science, frameworks and systems of knowledge are often referred to in the context of knowledge representation (e.g., in artificial intelligence, cognitive science, or knowledge management). Still, "Framework or System of Knowledge" is not commonly used as a technical term.
My Familiarity with the Term:
I haven't come across "Framework or System of Knowledge (FSK)" as a formalized term in my training or in well-known academic or technical contexts. If you or someone you know has introduced this term or encountered it in a specific discipline or online, it may represent a novel or emerging concept. I learned of it just now through our discussion.

Would you like me to investigate its possible origin or explore how it could be formalized into a technical term?

Gary:
Yes, please investigate the possible origin of Framework or System of Knowledge (FSK).

ChatGPT:
The term "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK) appears to have been introduced and discussed by a user named Veritas Aequitas on the Philosophy Now Forum in December 2024. In a thread titled "What is a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]?", Veritas Aequitas elaborates on the concept, defining it as a combination of a conceptual framework and a system applied to knowledge. They argue that the Scientific FSK is currently the most credible and discuss its relevance to various fields, including morality.
PHILOSOPHY NOW FORUM

In the same forum, another thread titled "FSK is Not My Invention" includes a post by a user named Gary Childress, dated December 17, 2024, discussing the term "framework or system of knowledge." Childress notes that using the term dismissively can be tricky, as it might lead to criticisms about whether the FSK itself is just another FSK.
PHILOSOPHY NOW FORUM

Based on the available information, it seems that the term "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK) is a relatively recent coinage, primarily discussed within the Philosophy Now Forum in December 2024. There is no evidence to suggest that it has been widely adopted or recognized in broader philosophical or scientific communities.

It's worth noting that the abbreviation FSK is commonly associated with Frequency Shift Keying, a modulation technique used in telecommunications.
WIKIPEDIA
Additionally, in Germany, FSK stands for Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft, the self-regulatory body of the movie industry responsible for film ratings.
WIKIPEDIA
These established uses are unrelated to the "Framework and System of Knowledge" concept discussed in the Philosophy Now Forum.

If you have a specific context or application in mind for the term "Framework and System of Knowledge," please provide more details, and I can assist further.

[Gary Childress]

I mean, maybe you did invent the term FSK, in which case, maybe it will catch on eventually if it is a useful concept. Nothing wrong with being the inventor of a new acronym that might be philosophically useful.