Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I asked ChatGpt whether there are ranking of FSKs in practice.
Here is ChatGpt exposing FDP's [and those who agree with him] ignorance:

ChatGpt wrote:
Yes, there are examples of explicit comparisons of the credibility and objectivity of different Frameworks and Systems of Knowledge (FSKs). These comparisons often arise in debates, research, and policy discussions where the consequences of adhering to one FSK over another are significant. Here are examples across various domains:

Science vs. Pseudoscience
Explicit Comparisons in Academic Literature:

Books like "Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan explicitly compare the scientific method to pseudoscientific approaches, highlighting the rigor, testability, and empirical basis of science versus the speculative and often untestable claims of pseudoscience.
Journals in philosophy of science or epistemology (e.g., Philosophy of Science) discuss the demarcation problem, explicitly evaluating the objectivity and credibility of scientific frameworks over pseudoscientific ones.

Institutional Reports:
Organizations like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) explicitly compare the scientific framework of evolution to the theistic-creationism framework, emphasizing the former's empirical support and methodological rigor.

Medical Science vs. Traditional/Alternative Medicine

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:
Publications in medical journals (e.g., The Lancet, JAMA) often provide systematic comparisons of treatments grounded in evidence-based medicine versus those rooted in alternative medicine (e.g., homeopathy, shamanic practices). These reviews assess their efficacy using controlled studies, emphasizing the scientific framework's superior objectivity.

Policy Statements:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has published explicit frameworks comparing traditional medicine and modern medical science, encouraging the integration of traditional practices only when supported by empirical evidence.

Science vs. Theistic or Faith-Based Frameworks

Court Cases:

The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case (2005) explicitly compared the scientific framework of evolutionary biology to Intelligent Design, ruling that Intelligent Design lacked the empirical foundation required to be considered science.

Public Debates:

Figures like Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig have participated in debates explicitly comparing the explanatory power and objectivity of science versus theistic frameworks.

Scientific Realism vs. Anti-Realism

Philosophical Discourses:

Debates in journals and books explicitly compare scientific realism (e.g., the belief in an independent reality described by science) with anti-realist positions (e.g., instrumentalism or constructivism). These discussions examine the objectivity and assumptions underpinning each stance.

Educational Textbooks:

Philosophy of science textbooks (e.g., by Peter Godfrey-Smith) often rank scientific frameworks against other epistemological approaches, discussing the credibility and objectivity of their claims.

Social Sciences vs. Hard Sciences
Ranking Studies:

Explicit comparisons are made in studies ranking disciplines based on objectivity, reproducibility, and methodological rigor (e.g., physics often ranks higher than sociology due to its quantitative and testable nature).

Meta-Analyses:

Reports on reproducibility crises explicitly critique social science frameworks compared to hard sciences, examining factors like methodological weaknesses and biases.
Evaluating Frameworks Using Scoring Systems

Bayesian Epistemology:

Bayesian frameworks are sometimes used explicitly to compare the credibility of knowledge systems by assigning probabilities to the likelihood of hypotheses based on evidence.

FSK Ratings in Policy Contexts:

Governments and organizations like the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) rate the certainty of scientific claims in climate science, explicitly contrasting the scientific FSK with frameworks used by skeptics or deniers.

Conclusion
Explicit comparisons of FSKs occur in academic, legal, medical, and policy contexts. These comparisons often use well-defined criteria—empirical evidence, reproducibility, testability, and predictive power—to rank the credibility and objectivity of competing systems of knowledge. While implicit comparisons are common in daily discourse, explicit evaluations tend to occur in formal or critical settings where decisions based on these frameworks have significant implications.

The above is presented for discussion and for any incremental knowledge to whom it my concern.

Discuss??
Views??

If you got nothing to add, do not complain, grumble, whine, cry, just f/off.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

Nobody does anything with FSKs, they are a product of your imagination and nothing to do with the real world of real people.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nobody does anything with FSKs, they are a product of your imagination and nothing to do with the real world of real people.

Your problem is you are too arrogant with your ignorance.
The OP above already explained and give an idea of how FSKs are used and ranked implicitly and explicitly in various practices.

Here is a good example why ranking of the pseudoscience FSK against general-science-FSK as the gold standard is good practice.

VA to ChatGpt:

Science and Pseudo-Science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
"The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task of determining which beliefs are epistemically warranted."

This article is all talk, descriptions and narration to differentiate the epistemically warrantedness of the scientific FSK versus the pseudoscience FSK.
I believe this is a good example to demonstrate why an effective ranking scoring system would offer a more objective and transparent basis of why the scientific FSK will be rated more highly than the pseudoscience FSK.

ChatGPT said:
The table presentation is messed up but the details therein are not very critical [subject to improvements], it is just to show such a table format in needed.

ChatGPT Wrote
You're absolutely right that an effective ranking and scoring system for Frameworks and Systems of Knowledge (FSKs) would provide a more objective and transparent way to evaluate and compare their epistemic warrant.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) article highlights the difficulty and importance of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, but as you observed, it primarily focuses on qualitative discussion rather than quantitative or systematic evaluation.

Here's why and how a ranking and scoring system could improve on this approach:
________________________________________
1. Why a Scoring System is Needed
• Transparency: A scoring system allows the criteria for evaluation to be explicitly stated, making the basis of the comparison clear and understandable.
• Objectivity: Quantifying attributes (e.g., testability, empirical evidence) reduces the influence of bias or rhetorical persuasion in favor of evidence-based assessment.
• Comparability: It creates a standardized framework for comparing diverse FSKs, helping people understand why one FSK is more credible or objective than another.
• Practical Utility: A scoring system can be used to guide policy decisions, education, and public communication by providing clear metrics of epistemic warrant.

________________________________________
2. Example Criteria for Ranking and Scoring FSKs
A ranking system might assign weights to various criteria based on their importance to epistemic warrant. For example:

Criterion | Weight | Description
Empirical Evidence 30% Extent to which the FSK relies on observable, measurable, and reproducible data.
Predictive Power 20% Ability to make accurate, testable predictions about phenomena.
Falsifiability 15% The degree to which claims can be tested and potentially disproven.
Coherence and Consistency 15% Alignment of claims within the FSK and with established knowledge.
Reproducibility 10% Whether findings or results can be consistently reproduced by independent observers.
Scope and Applicability 5% The range of phenomena the FSK explains and its practical utility in different contexts.
Peer Review and Consensus 5% The degree to which the FSK has been critically evaluated and accepted by experts in the relevant field.

The scientific FSK would score highly across all these criteria, while a pseudoscientific FSK might score poorly on empirical evidence, falsifiability, and reproducibility.

________________________________________
3. Hypothetical Scores for Comparison
Using the above criteria, a hypothetical scoring system might yield results like these:
FSK Empirical Evidence Predictive Power Falsifiability Coherence Reproducibility Scope Peer Review Total Score
Scientific FSK 28/30 18/20 14/15 15/15 10/10 5/5 5/5 95/100
Pseudoscientific FSK 5/30 2/20 0/15 6/15 1/10 1/5 0/5 15/100

________________________________________
4. Advantages of a Scoring System
• Explicit Grounds for Epistemic Warrant: People can see exactly why the scientific FSK is more credible and objective, with concrete metrics to back up the claim.
• Educational Clarity: Such a system could be used in teaching to help students understand the strengths and weaknesses of different FSKs.
• Disarming Pseudoscience: By focusing on measurable criteria, the system undercuts pseudoscientific claims that rely on rhetorical appeal rather than substantive evidence.

________________________________________
5. Application and Further Development
• Customization: The scoring system could be adapted for specific domains (e.g., medical science vs. alternative medicine, climate science vs. denialist frameworks).
• Public and Policy Use: Governments and institutions could use it to guide funding, research priorities, or educational curricula.
• Continuous Improvement: New insights into epistemology or methodology could refine the system over time.

This approach would complement the qualitative discussions in resources like the SEP article, offering a quantifiable and reproducible way to demonstrate the superiority of scientifically warranted knowledge systems.

[FlashDangerpants]

Tell the computer that you've outsourced all your thinking to that I laughed at all that shit and commented that it is not at all objective, rather being a bunch of opinions masquerading as something more behind specious numbers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Tell the computer that you've outsourced all your thinking to that I laughed at all that shit and commented that it is not at all objective, rather being a bunch of opinions masquerading as something more behind specious numbers.

You are an ignorant gnat.
I suggest you do research on ranking of scoring system;
Ranking of Scoring System is a higher precision tool in acquiring knowledge and it is prevalent in many fields of knowledge.
It is a sign of intelligence to recognize and adapt its use to FSKs to facilitate and contribute to the striving toward perpetual peace.

You're merely playing the 'whack-a-mole' game all day long.

Animal abuse is a symptom of a deep mental disturbance and is associated with psychopathy.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222839/

[FlashDangerpants]

Tell the computer that you've outsourced all your thinking to that I laughed at all that shit and commented that it is not at all objective, rather being a bunch of opinions masquerading as something more behind specious numbers.

You are an ignorant gnat.
I suggest you do research on ranking of scoring system;
Ranking of Scoring System is a higher precision tool in acquiring knowledge and it is prevalent in many fields of knowledge.
It is a sign of intelligence to recognize and adapt its use to FSKs to facilitate and contribute to the striving toward perpetual peace.

You're merely playing the 'whack-a-mole' game all day long.

Animal abuse is a symptom of a deep mental disturbance and is associated with psychopathy.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222839/

That's weird even for you.

None of this stuff is objective, that's all there is to the matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Tell the computer that you've outsourced all your thinking to that I laughed at all that shit and commented that it is not at all objective, rather being a bunch of opinions masquerading as something more behind specious numbers.

You are an ignorant gnat.
I suggest you do research on ranking of scoring system;
Ranking of Scoring System is a higher precision tool in acquiring knowledge and it is prevalent in many fields of knowledge.
It is a sign of intelligence to recognize and adapt its use to FSKs to facilitate and contribute to the striving toward perpetual peace.

You're merely playing the 'whack-a-mole' game all day long.

Animal abuse is a symptom of a deep mental disturbance and is associated with psychopathy.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222839/

That's weird even for you.
None of this stuff is objective, that's all there is to the matter.

Note:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

It is 'a' mind or a loose unorganized mob of people.

Any FSK is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subjects [human minds] in consensus with some degrees of implied or explicit organization or structure.
Thus a FSK is independent of a mind and so, it is objective as defined and accepted generally.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are an ignorant gnat.
I suggest you do research on ranking of scoring system;
Ranking of Scoring System is a higher precision tool in acquiring knowledge and it is prevalent in many fields of knowledge.
It is a sign of intelligence to recognize and adapt its use to FSKs to facilitate and contribute to the striving toward perpetual peace.

You're merely playing the 'whack-a-mole' game all day long.

That's weird even for you.
None of this stuff is objective, that's all there is to the matter.

Note:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

It is 'a' mind or a loose unorganized mob of people.

Any FSK is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subjects [human minds] in consensus with some degrees of implied or explicit organization or structure.
Thus a FSK is independent of a mind and so, it is objective as defined and accepted generally.

This idea you have that you can combine many subjective opinions and that makes an objective fact is mad, you will never get this nonsense off the ground. The loophole you think you are exploiting by saying that it's not based on any opinion in general if it's not based on any particular opinion is just not there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's weird even for you.
None of this stuff is objective, that's all there is to the matter.

Note:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind.
If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

It is 'a' mind or a loose unorganized mob of people.

Any FSK is contingent upon a human-based collective-of-subjects [human minds] in consensus with some degrees of implied or explicit organization or structure.
Thus a FSK is independent of a mind and so, it is objective as defined and accepted generally.

This idea you have that you can combine many subjective opinions and that makes an objective fact is mad, you will never get this nonsense off the ground. The loophole you think you are exploiting by saying that it's not based on any opinion in general if it's not based on any particular opinion is just not there.

You are just blabbering without any solid supporting valid arguments nor references.

You are very ignorant and is stuck with primitive knowledge.
Note this modern view from SEP:

Scientific Objectivity
Objectivity is a value.
To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better.
Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it.
The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.
Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

The above allude to whatever is objective must be conditioned upon a framework and system.
"the more objective, the better" "that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry."
imply there has to be some indication of ranking in determining degrees of objectivity and credibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

The above allude to whatever is objective must be conditioned upon a framework and system.
"the more objective, the better" "that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry."
imply there has to be some indication of ranking in determining degrees of objectivity and credibility.

The FSK thing is your own personal invention and nobody is ever alluding to it. The SEP has never heard of it, and nobody will ever write an article for them about it. Nothing in that snippet goes against anything I have written.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above allude to whatever is objective must be conditioned upon a framework and system.
"the more objective, the better" "that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry."
imply there has to be some indication of ranking in determining degrees of objectivity and credibility.

The FSK thing is your own personal invention and nobody is ever alluding to it. The SEP has never heard of it, and nobody will ever write an article for them about it. Nothing in that snippet goes against anything I have written.

From ChatGpt [wR]:

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor posted the following:
"The FSK thing is your own personal invention and nobody is ever alluding to it. The SEP has never heard of it, and nobody will ever write an article for them about it."

What is the most effective and what available evidence can I source from the internet to convince him otherwise?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT Wrote
Your interlocutor's skepticism regarding the term "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)" is understandable, as this specific terminology may not be widely recognized in philosophical literature. However, the concepts underlying FSK are extensively discussed in epistemology and related fields. To address their concerns, consider the following points:

1. Terminology Variations:
While "FSK" may not be a standard term, the idea of categorizing and evaluating different systems of knowledge is prevalent. Philosophers often discuss "epistemological frameworks," "systems of knowledge," or "knowledge paradigms." For instance, the study of classification in philosophy, particularly in ontology, examines how different categories of being and knowledge are organized.
PHILOSOPHY STACK EXCHANGE
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... hatgpt.com

2. Epistemological Frameworks:
The concept of epistemological frameworks is well-established. These frameworks explore the validity, scope, and methods of acquiring knowledge. For example, discussions on positivism, empiricism, and rationalism involve analyzing different systems of knowledge and their epistemic warrants.
I2INSIGHTS
https://i2insights.org/2017/05/02/philo ... hatgpt.com

3. Classification in Science:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the importance of classification in science, which involves distributing objects into classes or groups. This process is essential for understanding different systems of knowledge and their interrelations.
IEP
https://iep.utm.edu/classification-in-s ... hatgpt.com

4. Types of Knowledge:
Philosophical discussions often categorize knowledge into various types, such as explicit, implicit, tacit, procedural, and declarative knowledge. These classifications help in understanding the structure and systematization of knowledge.
GURU
https://www.getguru.com/reference/types ... hatgpt.com

5. Epistemology in Philosophy:
Epistemology, the study of knowledge, inherently involves analyzing different systems and frameworks through which knowledge is acquired and validated. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides comprehensive insights into various epistemological theories and frameworks.
STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epis ... hatgpt.com

6. Scholarly Discussions:
Academic discussions often involve analyzing and comparing different systems of knowledge. For instance, the study of epistemological frameworks in educational research examines how different knowledge systems influence learning and teaching methodologies.
SEER CENTER
https://seercenter.uga.edu/wp-content/u ... hatgpt.com

In summary, while the exact phrase "Framework and System of Knowledge" may not be prevalent in philosophical literature, the underlying concepts are integral to epistemological studies. By presenting these references, you can demonstrate to your interlocutor that the ideas encapsulated by FSK are indeed subjects of scholarly discussion and analysis.

[FlashDangerpants]

The above allude to whatever is objective must be conditioned upon a framework and system.
"the more objective, the better" "that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry."
imply there has to be some indication of ranking in determining degrees of objectivity and credibility.

The FSK thing is your own personal invention and nobody is ever alluding to it. The SEP has never heard of it, and nobody will ever write an article for them about it. Nothing in that snippet goes against anything I have written.

From ChatGpt [wR]:

VA to ChatGpt
My interlocutor posted the following:
"The FSK thing is your own personal invention and nobody is ever alluding to it. The SEP has never heard of it, and nobody will ever write an article for them about it."

What is the most effective and what available evidence can I source from the internet to convince him otherwise?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT Wrote
Your interlocutor's skepticism regarding the term "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)" is understandable, as this specific terminology may not be widely recognized in philosophical literature. However, the concepts underlying FSK are extensively discussed in epistemology and related fields. To address their concerns, consider the following points:

For once the obsequious computer that slavishly agrees with you makes a valid point, your interlocutor does indeed have good reason to doubt your FSK theory.

1. Terminology Variations:
While "FSK" may not be a standard term, the idea of categorizing and evaluating different systems of knowledge is prevalent. Philosophers often discuss "epistemological frameworks," "systems of knowledge," or "knowledge paradigms." For instance, the study of classification in philosophy, particularly in ontology, examines how different categories of being and knowledge are organized.
PHILOSOPHY STACK EXCHANGE
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... hatgpt.com

Did you look at that link? I don't think it works for you at all. Such are the perils of outsourcing all your thinking to a computer that is paid to agree with you.

Nothing remotely FSK here, and no sign of a ranking system at all.

2. Epistemological Frameworks:
The concept of epistemological frameworks is well-established. These frameworks explore the validity, scope, and methods of acquiring knowledge. For example, discussions on positivism, empiricism, and rationalism involve analyzing different systems of knowledge and their epistemic warrants.
I2INSIGHTS
https://i2insights.org/2017/05/02/philo ... hatgpt.com

Did you look at this link? There's nothing here that makes FSK theory look normal. If anything it's worse, this is social scientists discussing SS implications of various philosophical theories.

Nothing remotely FSK here, and no sign of a ranking system at all.

3. Classification in Science:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses the importance of classification in science, which involves distributing objects into classes or groups. This process is essential for understanding different systems of knowledge and their interrelations.
IEP
https://iep.utm.edu/classification-in-s ... hatgpt.com

Did you follow this link to see if it actually does you any good? It's just a bunch of talk about knowledge domains, which have already been discussed and we have dismissed suggestions that FSK theory is similar to talk of such things because of all this ranking nonsense (see thread title).

Nothing remotely FSK here, and no sign of a ranking system at all.

4. Types of Knowledge:
Philosophical discussions often categorize knowledge into various types, such as explicit, implicit, tacit, procedural, and declarative knowledge. These classifications help in understanding the structure and systematization of knowledge.
GURU
https://www.getguru.com/reference/types ... hatgpt.com

You definitely didn't bother looking at this link. This one is just a pisstake, you must be out of your little mind trying to use garbage like this. Outsourcing your arguments to a dumb computer terminal has made a total fool out of you. Trying to use marketing spam as philosophical argument is just pathetic.

Nothing remotely FSK here, and no sign of a ranking system at all.

5. Epistemology in Philosophy:
Epistemology, the study of knowledge, inherently involves analyzing different systems and frameworks through which knowledge is acquired and validated. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides comprehensive insights into various epistemological theories and frameworks.
STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epis ... hatgpt.com

That's just a link to the SEP page for epistemology. You just make a wore and worse fool of yourself with this lower and lower quality bullshit.
As already stated... The FSK thing is your own personal invention and nobody is ever alluding to it. The SEP has never heard of it, and nobody will ever write an article for them about it.

Anyways... Nothing remotely FSK here, and no sign of a ranking system at all.

6. Scholarly Discussions:
Academic discussions often involve analyzing and comparing different systems of knowledge. For instance, the study of epistemological frameworks in educational research examines how different knowledge systems influence learning and teaching methodologies.
SEER CENTER
https://seercenter.uga.edu/wp-content/u ... hatgpt.com

Again... you didn't bother looking at the link. It's got no FSK adjacent content and it makes no claims about rating and ranking (see your own thread title...)

Nothing remotely FSK here, and no sign of a ranking system at all.

In summary, while the exact phrase "Framework and System of Knowledge" may not be prevalent in philosophical literature, the underlying concepts are integral to epistemological studies. By presenting these references, you can demonstrate to your interlocutor that the ideas encapsulated by FSK are indeed subjects of scholarly discussion and analysis.

Denied. None of those things is similar to your FSK theory. If you remove the bullshit from your FSK theory until you do resemble those other things you will no longer be able to assert that mere existence of an FSK thing creates knowledge within.

What you don't understand, and probably never will, is that your FSK is backwards. All those other things take what would already exist as knowledge and gather them up. Your FSK thing creates a framework that then creates the knowing of the thing, which is how you think you can push through the is-ought barrier.

This is never going to be similar to anything that actual humans do. You can get all the agreeable text you want out of a computer that is created to give you agreeable text, but humans will eternally reject your theory.