FSK is Not My Invention

[Atla]

Cheap shot.
I had always qualify 'prove' in this sense as philosophical not mathematical, i.e. it meant demonstrate or justify with evidence and arguments from the philosophical perspective.

You are the one who is making the positive claim that the ultimate object of IR beyond empirical perception is really real. So the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Kantian perspective strawman. It's a positive claim only when we already assume mind-related reality, which I don't assume. From my perspective the onus is on you to prove your claim of mind-related reality first, you are making 1 fundamental assumption and I'm not making any.

Anyway, I will add my argument, why your claim is not tenable [done many times]:
1. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans [minds].
3. Therefore, humans [minds] are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].
4. Therefore, reality cannot be absolutely independent of humans [minds].
That IR is positing an ultimate object beyond empirical perceptions [human and mind related] is not tenable. [4]

Kant [with his Copernican Revolution] claimed whatever is real is confined to the empirical world and reinforced with critical thinking plus the scientific FSK [scientific antirealism] which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Therefore whatever is confirmed by the scientific-antirealism-FSK is real.
So, the apple out there as confirmed by the science-biology-FSK [antirealism] is real as a scientific fact.

If reality is comprised of humans [minds] then humans [minds] are NOT intricately part and parcel of reality, they ARE reality. Unless you just mean that there are only humans [minds] and they are intricately connected. Make 2. and 3. clearer.

And then prove that reality is comprised of humans [minds], if that's what you meant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Cheap shot.
I had always qualify 'prove' in this sense as philosophical not mathematical, i.e. it meant demonstrate or justify with evidence and arguments from the philosophical perspective.

You are the one who is making the positive claim that the ultimate object of IR beyond empirical perception is really real. So the onus is on you to prove your claim.

Kantian perspective strawman. It's a positive claim only when we already assume mind-related reality, which I don't assume. From my perspective the onus is on you to prove your claim of mind-related reality first, you are making 1 fundamental assumption and I'm not making any.

You are making the positive claim within IR there is an ultimate object beyond empirical observations.
So you have to provide the "proofs" or justifications.

If reality is comprised of humans [minds] then humans [minds] are NOT intricately part and parcel of reality, they ARE reality. Unless you just mean that there are only humans [minds] and they are intricately connected. Make 2. and 3. clearer.

And then prove that reality is comprised of humans [minds], if that's what you meant.

Where is your rationality.
If Sea-Water comprised [contained] H20,
then H and O [& other elements] therein are intricately part of water.

Reality is all there is, i.e. comprised of all things including humans.
Humans cannot BE reality [not the whole of reality], they are only parts of reality, i.e. part and parcel of reality, thus related.

Note my detailed argument here:

Reality is Human_Mind-Related
viewtopic.php?t=43260

[Atla]

You are making the positive claim within IR there is an ultimate object beyond empirical observations.
So you have to provide the "proofs" or justifications.

Strawman word salad, that's not what 'empirical' means in IR at all. Of course IR doesn't typically make positive claims beyond empirical observations.

How can you be so shit at philosophy.

Reality is all there is, i.e. comprised of all things including humans.
Humans cannot BE reality [not the whole of reality], they are only parts of reality, i.e. part and parcel of reality, thus related.

Note my detailed argument here:

Reality is Human_Mind-Related
viewtopic.php?t=43260

Word salad. Humans being part and parcel of reality and human-related reality are two wildly different philosophies. You never understood this gnat-level fact and never will.

Well this isn't fun anymore. I'll do something else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are making the positive claim within IR there is an ultimate object beyond empirical observations.
So you have to provide the "proofs" or justifications.

Strawman word salad, that's not what 'empirical' means in IR at all. Of course IR doesn't typically make positive claims beyond empirical observations.

How can you be so shit at philosophy.

Reality is all there is, i.e. comprised of all things including humans.
Humans cannot BE reality [not the whole of reality], they are only parts of reality, i.e. part and parcel of reality, thus related.

Note my detailed argument here:

Reality is Human_Mind-Related
viewtopic.php?t=43260

Word salad. Humans being part and parcel of reality and human-related reality are two wildly different philosophies. You never understood this gnat-level fact and never will.

Well this isn't fun anymore. I'll do something else.

Blabbering again without solid arguments.
Running out of counters and losing an argument especially where the existential crisis is triggered is painful.
You had been arguing without producing any credible references at all but merely based on your first-person opinions.

The main contention is this charge of mine:
ChatGpt: Indirect Realism Chasing an Illusion
viewtopic.php?t=42607
upon your claim that the ultimate object of IR is really real.

It is your discretion [to run away] to relieve the pain at the expense of believing what is really real.

[FlashDangerpants]

FSK isn't implicit in anything at all, only you think the FSK thing resembles real world applications. The scoring system, the autistic sorting game that it propels, and the absurd rigidity are all personal to you and not reflected in the broader epistemological world of other people.

Any average intelligent person will understand a FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] is a common concept that is implicit within all fields of knowledge.

They will say that discourses, fields of study, knowledge domains and such are commonplace notions. But subject them to the actual specifics of your FSK theory and they will say that it is mostly implausible nonsense.

All fields of knowledge are confined within a Framework that is specific to that specific field of knowledge. Example science, history, economics, has it specific principles, assumptions, methodology, etc. in its knowledge.

Stop there and you don't sound like a lunatic yet. Get to the bit where the product of any FSK is fact and thus any FSK you construct is a source of fact though and everyone will see you are mad. As that latter is a crucial part of your FSK theory... and is in fact the entire point of it, I choose not overlook it.

The term system i.e. where there are inputs, processes, output and control mechanisms is so obvious within a field of knowledge.
No wonder your philosophical knowledge is so bankrupt.

Yeah, you are describing mind maps and diagrams that you use to understand things aren't you? Those are much more important to autistic persons than they are to other people. It's kind of a giveaway that one.

I did not claim the ranking of the FSKs is a common thing.
I introduced the ranking system to increase the precision and rigor in the presentation of knowledge in general and where comparison is needed critically.

The ranking system makes your FSK thing what it is, leave it out and you don't look mad anymore, but you don't get to do your gold standard science thing. But that is the point of it, to have the gold standard and the numbers to amke it official. Why do you keep pretending they are only a small part of it?

When one claimed science is more credible than pseudoscience or the other way [or any relevant comparisons of knowledge], one has implicitly applied some sort of ranking methodology subconsciously.
I am trying to make such implicit ranking more explicit and transparent to reveal how the conclusions are arrive at by any party.
This explicit method of ranking is a highly recommended for problem solving and decision making which happen to be my forte and critical to my profession.

What is your profession? Is it philosopher? This is a philosophy forum, and you are supposedly presenting a philosophical case, so maybe try using the tools of philosophy instead of pointless crap you found lying around the office.

Nobody needs a score to dismiss a pseudoscience. It either is a working science or not a pseudo one, being 17% as good as a real sciecne isn't a thing. That's just some nonsense you made up.

If say your boss chose to promote your colleague over you to a higher position [with a 50% increase in salary], surely it would be more reasonable if your boss were to show you his ranking system to avoid being bias, favoritism, racism or other bias basis.
Or say, you are in a committee with the Board of Directors to choose a CEO for your company, surely a transparent ranking process would be fair to all.
It would be same for any situation of decision making [where it is critical and time is available], the introduction of a transparent ranking methodology and system is a more advanced mode and skill than making decisions off the cuff.

You have forgotten that you were trying to show this is all normal and a descriptive account of how things work in the usual order of things without making any changes? There is nothing built into our handling of fact that supports this urgency you are assigning to comparing different fields and having scorecards in support of that.

[FlashDangerpants]

How can you be so shit at philosophy.

He thinks that the more wrong he gets, the more sophisticated he must be. Any normal notion of fact involves some form of proposition supported by reference to something, his version includes an overpowering need to have a list of all the fact things and a system for comparing them.

That's so wrong it must incredibly sophisticated and therefore beyond the realm of stuff that a mere right thinking person like you or me could understand.

[Atla]

How can you be so shit at philosophy.

He thinks that the more wrong he gets, the more sophisticated he must be. Any normal notion of fact involves some form of proposition supported by reference to something, his version includes an overpowering need to have a list of all the fact things and a system for comparing them.

That's so wrong it must incredibly sophisticated and therefore beyond the realm of stuff that a mere right thinking person like you or me could understand.

That's not even my biggest problem with him. He reads the Wiki page on p-realism, and re-reads it, and then re-reads it 50 more times. He claims to read articles and books on it. Because he wants to critique p-realism.

And he still gets the basic meaning of p-realism wrong beyond our wildest imaginations. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. And somewhere he still thinks he's correct. It's baffling.

[Veritas Aequitas]

FSK isn't implicit in anything at all, only you think the FSK thing resembles real world applications. The scoring system, the autistic sorting game that it propels, and the absurd rigidity are all personal to you and not reflected in the broader epistemological world of other people.

Any average intelligent person will understand a FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] is a common concept that is implicit within all fields of knowledge.

They will say that discourses, fields of study, knowledge domains and such are commonplace notions. But subject them to the actual specifics of your FSK theory and they will say that it is mostly implausible nonsense.

Who are 'they' that you are referring to?
On what grounds would 'they' reject my proposals and specifics of my FSK?

All fields of knowledge are confined within a Framework that is specific to that specific field of knowledge. Example science, history, economics, has it specific principles, assumptions, methodology, etc. in its knowledge.

Stop there and you don't sound like a lunatic yet. Get to the bit where the product of any FSK is fact and thus any FSK you construct is a source of fact though and everyone will see you are mad. As that latter is a crucial part of your FSK theory... and is in fact the entire point of it, I choose not overlook it.

You don't have any credibility on this matter. Your above POV is grounded on PR which is ultimately grounded on an illusion.

I have gone through that with PH;
Why Philosophical Realism [PR] is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's ‘What is Fact’ [grounded on PR] is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

"everyone" ?? who??
This is your shoddy thinking ending up with bankrupt views.

So far, PH and you have not produced any argument and references to support the claim of the analytic version of 'what is fact', i.e.
'a fact is a feature of reality, that is the case, a state of affairs, something just is, which exists regardless of whether there are humans or not, i.e. absolutely mind-independent.

The term system i.e. where there are inputs, processes, output and control mechanisms is so obvious within a field of knowledge.
No wonder your philosophical knowledge is so bankrupt.

Yeah, you are describing mind maps and diagrams that you use to understand things aren't you? Those are much more important to autistic persons than they are to other people. It's kind of a giveaway that one.

Nope, you are lost.
I am talking something like modeling,

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

The above is extended to Kuhn's Paradigms.

In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/ PARR-ə-dyme) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field. The word paradigm is Greek in origin, meaning "pattern". -WIKI

I did not claim the ranking of the FSKs is a common thing.
I introduced the ranking system to increase the precision and rigor in the presentation of knowledge in general and where comparison is needed critically.

The ranking system makes your FSK thing what it is, leave it out and you don't look mad anymore, but you don't get to do your gold standard science thing. But that is the point of it, to have the gold standard and the numbers to make it official. Why do you keep pretending they are only a small part of it?

It seem you have conceded to accept my concept of FSKs (earlier condemned as KFC etc.) but reject the ranking system.
Rejecting the ranking system of the FSKs where it is critically needed is rejecting precision, refinement and rigor.
Establishing a gold standard is critical, i.e. to avoid messing with a moving goal posts. Imagine navigating with a moving lighthouse, light source or star.

Here are examples where FSKs are used and ranked either implicitly or explicitly:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

Nobody needs a score to dismiss a pseudoscience. It either is a working science or not a pseudo one, being 17% as good as a real sciecne isn't a thing. That's just some nonsense you made up.

A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

If say your boss chose to promote your colleague over you to a higher position [with a 50% increase in salary], surely it would be more reasonable if your boss were to show you his ranking system to avoid being bias, favoritism, racism or other bias basis.
Or say, you are in a committee with the Board of Directors to choose a CEO for your company, surely a transparent ranking process would be fair to all.
It would be same for any situation of decision making [where it is critical and time is available], the introduction of a transparent ranking methodology and system is a more advanced mode and skill than making decisions off the cuff.

You have forgotten that you were trying to show this is all normal and a descriptive account of how things work in the usual order of things without making any changes? There is nothing built into our handling of fact that supports this urgency you are assigning to comparing different fields and having scorecards in support of that.

The above is an example and analogy which principles are the same with my ranking of FSKs.
Repeat the above:
A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

[FlashDangerpants]

Any average intelligent person will understand a FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] is a common concept that is implicit within all fields of knowledge.

They will say that discourses, fields of study, knowledge domains and such are commonplace notions. But subject them to the actual specifics of your FSK theory and they will say that it is mostly implausible nonsense.

Who are 'they' that you are referring to?
On what grounds would 'they' reject my proposals and specifics of my FSK?

In the snippet I was responding to, you referred to "Any average intelligent person", so the only reason you would ask now who "they" might be is that this does not include yourself.

I have explained already why your FSK thing is not similar to the usual ways of organising fields of study and so on. Primarily it comes down to your strange belief that all facts must at all times be considered to live inside an FSK and that it is the FSK that makes the thing a fact. This is nothing like how a normal person of average intelligence would consider the fields of History or Semantics to work.

All fields of knowledge are confined within a Framework that is specific to that specific field of knowledge. Example science, history, economics, has it specific principles, assumptions, methodology, etc. in its knowledge.

Stop there and you don't sound like a lunatic yet. Get to the bit where the product of any FSK is fact and thus any FSK you construct is a source of fact though and everyone will see you are mad. As that latter is a crucial part of your FSK theory... and is in fact the entire point of it, I choose not overlook it.

You don't have any credibility on this matter. Your above POV is grounded on PR which is ultimately grounded on an illusion.

I long ago told you I had nothing to do with the realism/antirealism thing, leave me out of it, if Pete wants to waste his life debating it with you, perhaps he will return. But for me it's a pseudo-problem. So we're just going to skip all the stuff about that ...

"everyone" ?? who??

Absolutely everybody. Everybody on PN thinks you are mad, every day you launch new threads about this FSK thing, and in it you claim that any and all these FSK things are sources of facts but the world is not a source of facts. That's just sort of silly and you haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that it isn't, have you? That's why you are so comically grateful to a computer that simulates a belief in it.

I did not claim the ranking of the FSKs is a common thing.
I introduced the ranking system to increase the precision and rigor in the presentation of knowledge in general and where comparison is needed critically.

The ranking system makes your FSK thing what it is, leave it out and you don't look mad anymore, but you don't get to do your gold standard science thing. But that is the point of it, to have the gold standard and the numbers to make it official. Why do you keep pretending they are only a small part of it?

It seem you have conceded to accept my concept of FSKs (earlier condemned as KFC etc.) but reject the ranking system.

It seems you have reading and comprehension problems then. The FSK thing is either trivial and only says the obvious - that we have various discourses for discussing particular sorts of things - or it is batshit nonsense that asserts control over all knowledge and can manufacture actual fact out of nothing but opinion. We don't need it in either case, it is junk.

Rejecting the ranking system of the FSKs where it is critically needed is rejecting precision, refinement and rigor.
Establishing a gold standard is critical, i.e. to avoid messing with a moving goal posts. Imagine navigating with a moving lighthouse, light source or star.

That's just pointless waffle. A ranking system isn't critically needed at all. Your rubbish is not precise, it is constructed of bullshit numbers that do nothing.

Most importantly, look at the title of the thread. You are most definitely the inventor if this ranking nonsense.

Here are examples where FSKs are used and ranked either implicitly or explicitly:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

Nobody needs a score to dismiss a pseudoscience. It either is a working science or not a pseudo one, being 17% as good as a real sciecne isn't a thing. That's just some nonsense you made up.

A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

That's complete nonsense. You slide in a claim of objectivity that you know is absurd. If it's a pseudoscience then that is all we need to know that it is not credible, putting a number on it is like putting a hat on hat. If people believe in it still, then they don't believe in your fraudulent numbers for some reason - bizarrely that would likely be because they can spot it is itself completely pseudoscientific.

If say your boss chose to promote your colleague over you to a higher position [with a 50% increase in salary], surely it would be more reasonable if your boss were to show you his ranking system to avoid being bias, favoritism, racism or other bias basis.
Or say, you are in a committee with the Board of Directors to choose a CEO for your company, surely a transparent ranking process would be fair to all.
It would be same for any situation of decision making [where it is critical and time is available], the introduction of a transparent ranking methodology and system is a more advanced mode and skill than making decisions off the cuff.

You have forgotten that you were trying to show this is all normal and a descriptive account of how things work in the usual order of things without making any changes? There is nothing built into our handling of fact that supports this urgency you are assigning to comparing different fields and having scorecards in support of that.

The above is an example and analogy which principles are the same with my ranking of FSKs.
Repeat the above:
A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

No, the scores are autistic.

[FlashDangerpants]

How can you be so shit at philosophy.

He thinks that the more wrong he gets, the more sophisticated he must be. Any normal notion of fact involves some form of proposition supported by reference to something, his version includes an overpowering need to have a list of all the fact things and a system for comparing them.

That's so wrong it must incredibly sophisticated and therefore beyond the realm of stuff that a mere right thinking person like you or me could understand.

That's not even my biggest problem with him. He reads the Wiki page on p-realism, and re-reads it, and then re-reads it 50 more times. He claims to read articles and books on it. Because he wants to critique p-realism.

And he still gets the basic meaning of p-realism wrong beyond our wildest imaginations. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. And somewhere he still thinks he's correct. It's baffling.

I wish he would learn to read properly, just taking some time to fully understand the thing on the page in front of him instead of racing to file it into a pointless collection of 12,438 folders.

[Veritas Aequitas]

They will say that discourses, fields of study, knowledge domains and such are commonplace notions. But subject them to the actual specifics of your FSK theory and they will say that it is mostly implausible nonsense.

Who are 'they' that you are referring to?
On what grounds would 'they' reject my proposals and specifics of my FSK?

In the snippet I was responding to, you referred to "Any average intelligent person", so the only reason you would ask now who "they" might be is that this does not include yourself.

I have already shown you via AI, even the specifics of my FSK theory, e.g. the ranking methodology is adopted by those who are diligent and rigorous with their arguments and claims.
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

I have explained already why your FSK thing is not similar to the usual ways of organising fields of study and so on. Primarily it comes down to your strange belief that all facts must at all times be considered to live inside an FSK and that it is the FSK that makes the thing a fact. This is nothing like how a normal person of average intelligence would consider the fields of History or Semantics to work.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSK-ed relative mind-independent fact
2. The philosophical realist absolutely mind-independent fact grounded on an illusion.

Here's the understanding of what is fact by any normal person of average intelligence.

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As implied above, the historical and linguistic/semantic facts must be confined within their respective a framework and system of knowledge FSK.

Whatever is FSK-ed is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects within consensus thus independent of any individual[s] opinions and belief.

Show me evidence where the Analytic Philosophy's version of 'what is fact' is still popular?

Stop there and you don't sound like a lunatic yet. Get to the bit where the product of any FSK is fact and thus any FSK you construct is a source of fact though and everyone will see you are mad. As that latter is a crucial part of your FSK theory... and is in fact the entire point of it, I choose not overlook it.

You don't have any credibility on this matter. Your above POV is grounded on PR which is ultimately grounded on an illusion.

I long ago told you I had nothing to do with the realism/antirealism thing, leave me out of it, if Pete wants to waste his life debating it with you, perhaps he will return. But for me it's a pseudo-problem. So we're just going to skip all the stuff about that ...

The "I said so" does not work here.
It is not so much realism/antirealism which can go either way, but rather specifically philosophical realism versus philosophical antirealism.
You believed in an absolutely mind-independent fact which is philosophical realism as defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
-otherwise, you are into some sort of philosophical antirealism.

"everyone" ?? who??

Absolutely everybody. Everybody on PN thinks you are mad, every day you launch new threads about this FSK thing, and in it you claim that any and all these FSK things are sources of facts but the world is not a source of facts. That's just sort of silly and you haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that it isn't, have you? That's why you are so comically grateful to a computer that simulates a belief in it.

You're bad with basic logic in clinging to the ad populum fallacy as valid.
I argued, you have no credibility to critique my position when your 'what is fact' based on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.
So far, you have not demonstrated what you claim as fact is really real?

The ranking system makes your FSK thing what it is, leave it out and you don't look mad anymore, but you don't get to do your gold standard science thing. But that is the point of it, to have the gold standard and the numbers to make it official. Why do you keep pretending they are only a small part of it?

It seem you have conceded to accept my concept of FSKs (earlier condemned as KFC etc.) but reject the ranking system.

It seems you have reading and comprehension problems then. The FSK thing is either trivial and only says the obvious - that we have various discourses for discussing particular sorts of things - or it is batshit nonsense that asserts control over all knowledge and can manufacture actual fact out of nothing but opinion. We don't need it in either case, it is junk.

FSK is not just "we have various discourses for discussing particular sorts of things"
You are so ignorant of the what a 'FSK' really represent.
What is FSK is grounded on 13.7 years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history where these are a priori conditions that contribute to what is realized as knowledge that is known, described and discussed.
It is by tracing these historical conditions that ground human beings, its reality and knowledge that we can contribute [via genomics, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.] to perpetual peace in the future, i.e. we should eliminate or prevent emergence of moral deficient psychopaths of your like in the future [too late now].

Rejecting the ranking system of the FSKs where it is critically needed is rejecting precision, refinement and rigor.
Establishing a gold standard is critical, i.e. to avoid messing with a moving goal posts. Imagine navigating with a moving lighthouse, light source or star.

That's just pointless waffle. A ranking system isn't critically needed at all. Your rubbish is not precise, it is constructed of bullshit numbers that do nothing.

Most importantly, look at the title of the thread. You are most definitely the inventor if this ranking nonsense.

The ranking system is prevalent in advanced knowledge.
I am merely adapting it to the FSKs, which is a sign of intelligence in practice, i.e. to contribute to higher positives for humanity.
If such adaptation is 'an invention' I will take it.

Here are examples where FSKs are used and ranked either implicitly or explicitly:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

Nobody needs a score to dismiss a pseudoscience. It either is a working science or not a pseudo one, being 17% as good as a real sciecne isn't a thing. That's just some nonsense you made up.

A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

That's complete nonsense. You slide in a claim of objectivity that you know is absurd. If it's a pseudoscience then that is all we need to know that it is not credible, putting a number on it is like putting a hat on hat. If people believe in it still, then they don't believe in your fraudulent numbers for some reason - bizarrely that would likely be because they can spot it is itself completely pseudoscientific.

Repeat:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

It is very stupid of you to reject what is more transparent rigorous and objective.

You have forgotten that you were trying to show this is all normal and a descriptive account of how things work in the usual order of things without making any changes? There is nothing built into our handling of fact that supports this urgency you are assigning to comparing different fields and having scorecards in support of that.

The above is an example and analogy which principles are the same with my ranking of FSKs.
Repeat the above:
A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

No, the scores are autistic.

I am not autistic, I don't mind if I am professionally diagnosed as such.
If mild autism on a wide spectrum, it is not as serious as a your moral deficient psychopath who lack empathy.

Again: A ranking scoring system makes it objective and transparent.
Suggest you do research on 'ranking scoring system'.

[FlashDangerpants]

Who are 'they' that you are referring to?
On what grounds would 'they' reject my proposals and specifics of my FSK?

In the snippet I was responding to, you referred to "Any average intelligent person", so the only reason you would ask now who "they" might be is that this does not include yourself.

I have already shown you via AI, even the specifics of my FSK theory, e.g. the ranking methodology is adopted by those who are diligent and rigorous with their arguments and claims.
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

That's all nonsense. There is no human being in the world who has accepted your FSK theory is there? No there isn't.

There will never be a human being in this world who buys into your ranking system using made up numbers to no purpose.

I have explained already why your FSK thing is not similar to the usual ways of organising fields of study and so on. Primarily it comes down to your strange belief that all facts must at all times be considered to live inside an FSK and that it is the FSK that makes the thing a fact. This is nothing like how a normal person of average intelligence would consider the fields of History or Semantics to work.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSK-ed relative mind-independent fact
2. The philosophical realist absolutely mind-independent fact grounded on an illusion.

You only do any of this so that your "morality-proper" can be used to construct "FSK-ed facts"
But FSK-ed fact is bullshit. You cannot just make facts by making an FSK, that's just silly.

You will never persuade a human being to go along with it, it will fail you for the rest of your life, which will have been completely wasted.

Here's the understanding of what is fact by any normal person of average intelligence.

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Up to this point, sure, point taken. As said before, at this particular stage in the reasoning, it's a bit overblown but not entirely mad....

As implied above, the historical and linguistic/semantic facts must be confined within their respective a framework and system of knowledge FSK.

Whatever is FSK-ed is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects within consensus thus independent of any individual[s] opinions and belief.

Boom, that's where you completely fuck it up. In the one sentence you note that facts which depend upon some form of definition are subject to the definitional field of study (big whoop)... but in the second sentence, you just fly off on a bullshit tangent.

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.

Show me evidence where the Analytic Philosophy's version of 'what is fact' is still popular?

That's a long and boring conversation. I will say this in general about philosophy and it applies to this question plus many others.... Whenever you see a a situation where there is a simple looking concept for which philosophers have 20 or 30 competing definitions (morality, truth, fact, whatever), at least all of the major definitions are pointed at a crucial ingredient and none of the competing definitions is successful if it lacks any of those. Yours included.

Pissants like think that because you can find a way to show that JTB is bullshit, facts don't need to be believed, justified and true. The reality is that they need those things and more. But that conversation is for people who are smarter than you so I won't be going any further with it in your company.

.... antirealism....

We can just skip the antirealism stuff. Argue about that with somebody else.

FSK is not just "we have various discourses for discussing particular sorts of things"

That's a shame, it would be a much less stupid theory if it were.

You are so ignorant of the what a 'FSK' really represent.
What is FSK is grounded on 13.7 years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history where these are a priori conditions that contribute to what is realized as knowledge that is known, described and discussed.
It is by tracing these historical conditions that ground human beings, its reality and knowledge that we can contribute [via genomics, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.] to perpetual peace in the future, i.e. we should eliminate or prevent emergence of moral deficient psychopaths of your like in the future [too late now].

Mysticism, I don't care for it.

That's just pointless waffle. A ranking system isn't critically needed at all. Your rubbish is not precise, it is constructed of bullshit numbers that do nothing.

Most importantly, look at the title of the thread. You are most definitely the inventor if this ranking nonsense.

The ranking system is prevalent in advanced knowledge.
I am merely adapting it to the FSKs, which is a sign of intelligence in practice, i.e. to contribute to higher positives for humanity.
If such adaptation is 'an invention' I will take it.

Well we can just close this conversation off there then. Your thread title claims that you aren't the inventor of the FSK, now you realise that you are.

Here are examples where FSKs are used and ranked either implicitly or explicitly:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

That's complete nonsense. You slide in a claim of objectivity that you know is absurd. If it's a pseudoscience then that is all we need to know that it is not credible, putting a number on it is like putting a hat on hat. If people believe in it still, then they don't believe in your fraudulent numbers for some reason - bizarrely that would likely be because they can spot it is itself completely pseudoscientific.

Repeat:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

It is very stupid of you to reject what is more transparent rigorous and objective.

It's all fake number. You cannot make up imaginary objective numbers on the basis of subjective opinion, that's just just too obvious.

The above is an example and analogy which principles are the same with my ranking of FSKs.
Repeat the above:
A score makes it objective and transparent why a certain pseudoscience is dismissed as not credible nor objective, especially where the demarcation is not obvious to hardcore believers of the said pseudoscience, e.g. Flat-Earth Theory, Acupuncture, Feng-Shui, Reincarnation, and so on.

No, the scores are autistic.

I am not autistic, I don't mind if I am professionally diagnosed as such.
If mild autism on a wide spectrum, it is not as serious as a your moral deficient psychopath who lack empathy.

Again: A ranking scoring system makes it objective and transparent.
Suggest you do research on 'ranking scoring system'.

Just go and get a test, then you can access useful services.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the snippet I was responding to, you referred to "Any average intelligent person", so the only reason you would ask now who "they" might be is that this does not include yourself.

I have already shown you via AI, even the specifics of my FSK theory, e.g. the ranking methodology is adopted by those who are diligent and rigorous with their arguments and claims.
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

That's all nonsense. There is no human being in the world who has accepted your FSK theory is there? No there isn't.

There will never be a human being in this world who buys into your ranking system using made up numbers to no purpose.

I have explained already why your FSK thing is not similar to the usual ways of organising fields of study and so on. Primarily it comes down to your strange belief that all facts must at all times be considered to live inside an FSK and that it is the FSK that makes the thing a fact. This is nothing like how a normal person of average intelligence would consider the fields of History or Semantics to work.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSK-ed relative mind-independent fact
2. The philosophical realist absolutely mind-independent fact grounded on an illusion.

You only do any of this so that your "morality-proper" can be used to construct "FSK-ed facts"
But FSK-ed fact is bullshit. You cannot just make facts by making an FSK, that's just silly.

You will never persuade a human being to go along with it, it will fail you for the rest of your life, which will have been completely wasted.

Here's the understanding of what is fact by any normal person of average intelligence.

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Up to this point, sure, point taken. As said before, at this particular stage in the reasoning, it's a bit overblown but not entirely mad....

As implied above, the historical and linguistic/semantic facts must be confined within their respective a framework and system of knowledge FSK.

Whatever is FSK-ed is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects within consensus thus independent of any individual[s] opinions and belief.

Boom, that's where you completely fuck it up. In the one sentence you note that facts which depend upon some form of definition are subject to the definitional field of study (big whoop)... but in the second sentence, you just fly off on a bullshit tangent.

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.

Show me evidence where the Analytic Philosophy's version of 'what is fact' is still popular?

That's a long and boring conversation. I will say this in general about philosophy and it applies to this question plus many others.... Whenever you see a a situation where there is a simple looking concept for which philosophers have 20 or 30 competing definitions (morality, truth, fact, whatever), at least all of the major definitions are pointed at a crucial ingredient and none of the competing definitions is successful if it lacks any of those. Yours included.

Pissants like think that because you can find a way to show that JTB is bullshit, facts don't need to be believed, justified and true. The reality is that they need those things and more. But that conversation is for people who are smarter than you so I won't be going any further with it in your company.

.... antirealism....

We can just skip the antirealism stuff. Argue about that with somebody else.

FSK is not just "we have various discourses for discussing particular sorts of things"

That's a shame, it would be a much less stupid theory if it were.

You are so ignorant of the what a 'FSK' really represent.
What is FSK is grounded on 13.7 years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history where these are a priori conditions that contribute to what is realized as knowledge that is known, described and discussed.
It is by tracing these historical conditions that ground human beings, its reality and knowledge that we can contribute [via genomics, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.] to perpetual peace in the future, i.e. we should eliminate or prevent emergence of moral deficient psychopaths of your like in the future [too late now].

Mysticism, I don't care for it.

The ranking system is prevalent in advanced knowledge.
I am merely adapting it to the FSKs, which is a sign of intelligence in practice, i.e. to contribute to higher positives for humanity.
If such adaptation is 'an invention' I will take it.

Well we can just close this conversation off there then. Your thread title claims that you aren't the inventor of the FSK, now you realise that you are.

That's complete nonsense. You slide in a claim of objectivity that you know is absurd. If it's a pseudoscience then that is all we need to know that it is not credible, putting a number on it is like putting a hat on hat. If people believe in it still, then they don't believe in your fraudulent numbers for some reason - bizarrely that would likely be because they can spot it is itself completely pseudoscientific.

Repeat:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

It is very stupid of you to reject what is more transparent rigorous and objective.

It's all fake number. You cannot make up imaginary objective numbers on the basis of subjective opinion, that's just just too obvious.

No, the scores are autistic.

I am not autistic, I don't mind if I am professionally diagnosed as such.
If mild autism on a wide spectrum, it is not as serious as a your moral deficient psychopath who lack empathy.

Again: A ranking scoring system makes it objective and transparent.
Suggest you do research on 'ranking scoring system'.

Just go and get a test, then you can access useful services.

You are so ignorant of what is going out there in the world of knowledge.
Your above counter points are purely based on your entrapment in a tall dark silo of dogmatic of the dying Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language.
Regardless of your denial you are a philosophical realist as defined here and in relation to your absolutely mind-independent fact:

Philosophical realism— is the view that a certain kind of thing ... has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Re OP and invention, to topic, I did not invent the fundament FSK concept and its ranking system which is already prevalent as an advanced tool in the acquisition and organization of knowledge.
I merely adapted the ranking system to the FSK of reality, truth, fact, knowledge and objectivity. If such adaption is an invention, I'll can agree with it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have already shown you via AI, even the specifics of my FSK theory, e.g. the ranking methodology is adopted by those who are diligent and rigorous with their arguments and claims.
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

That's all nonsense. There is no human being in the world who has accepted your FSK theory is there? No there isn't.

There will never be a human being in this world who buys into your ranking system using made up numbers to no purpose.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSK-ed relative mind-independent fact
2. The philosophical realist absolutely mind-independent fact grounded on an illusion.

You only do any of this so that your "morality-proper" can be used to construct "FSK-ed facts"
But FSK-ed fact is bullshit. You cannot just make facts by making an FSK, that's just silly.

You will never persuade a human being to go along with it, it will fail you for the rest of your life, which will have been completely wasted.

Here's the understanding of what is fact by any normal person of average intelligence.

Up to this point, sure, point taken. As said before, at this particular stage in the reasoning, it's a bit overblown but not entirely mad....

As implied above, the historical and linguistic/semantic facts must be confined within their respective a framework and system of knowledge FSK.

Whatever is FSK-ed is contingent upon a collective-of-subjects within consensus thus independent of any individual[s] opinions and belief.

Boom, that's where you completely fuck it up. In the one sentence you note that facts which depend upon some form of definition are subject to the definitional field of study (big whoop)... but in the second sentence, you just fly off on a bullshit tangent.

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.

Show me evidence where the Analytic Philosophy's version of 'what is fact' is still popular?

That's a long and boring conversation. I will say this in general about philosophy and it applies to this question plus many others.... Whenever you see a a situation where there is a simple looking concept for which philosophers have 20 or 30 competing definitions (morality, truth, fact, whatever), at least all of the major definitions are pointed at a crucial ingredient and none of the competing definitions is successful if it lacks any of those. Yours included.

Pissants like think that because you can find a way to show that JTB is bullshit, facts don't need to be believed, justified and true. The reality is that they need those things and more. But that conversation is for people who are smarter than you so I won't be going any further with it in your company.

.... antirealism....

We can just skip the antirealism stuff. Argue about that with somebody else.

FSK is not just "we have various discourses for discussing particular sorts of things"

That's a shame, it would be a much less stupid theory if it were.

You are so ignorant of the what a 'FSK' really represent.
What is FSK is grounded on 13.7 years of physical history and 3.5 billion years of organic history where these are a priori conditions that contribute to what is realized as knowledge that is known, described and discussed.
It is by tracing these historical conditions that ground human beings, its reality and knowledge that we can contribute [via genomics, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.] to perpetual peace in the future, i.e. we should eliminate or prevent emergence of moral deficient psychopaths of your like in the future [too late now].

Mysticism, I don't care for it.

The ranking system is prevalent in advanced knowledge.
I am merely adapting it to the FSKs, which is a sign of intelligence in practice, i.e. to contribute to higher positives for humanity.
If such adaptation is 'an invention' I will take it.

Well we can just close this conversation off there then. Your thread title claims that you aren't the inventor of the FSK, now you realise that you are.

Repeat:
Rating and Ranking of FSKs in Practice
viewtopic.php?t=43246

It is very stupid of you to reject what is more transparent rigorous and objective.

It's all fake number. You cannot make up imaginary objective numbers on the basis of subjective opinion, that's just just too obvious.

I am not autistic, I don't mind if I am professionally diagnosed as such.
If mild autism on a wide spectrum, it is not as serious as a your moral deficient psychopath who lack empathy.

Again: A ranking scoring system makes it objective and transparent.
Suggest you do research on 'ranking scoring system'.

Just go and get a test, then you can access useful services.

You are so ignorant of what is going out there in the world of knowledge.
Your above counter points are purely based on your entrapment in a tall dark silo of dogmatic of the dying Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Ordinary Language.
Regardless of your denial you are a philosophical realist as defined here and in relation to your absolutely mind-independent fact:

Philosophical realism— is the view that a certain kind of thing ... has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Re OP and invention, to topic, I did not invent the fundament FSK concept and its ranking system which is already prevalent as an advanced tool in the acquisition and organization of knowledge.
I merely adapted the ranking system to the FSK of reality, truth, fact, knowledge and objectivity. If such adaption is an invention, I'll can agree with it.

Your FSK theory is unique, it is not just a nromal theory that blends seemlessly in among all other talk of discourses. You cannot hide that and you cannot fool any humans with it. It is your invention as has been demonstrated.

Your ranking system is inane, it is not a natural application of appropriate tools and methods, it is instrumentally irrational.