Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 3:05 am I am interested.
I still do not understand your basis of "cooking made up numbers"? because what I am doing is being done commonly in rating and comparison in the various fields of knowledge.

For example in sports, e.g. that is an objective fact [i.e. a fact of sports] that Simone Biles is the 2023 Women Overall World Champion based on the criteria and weightages agreed by the International Gymnastics Federation and those who participated in the competition and all those who reported on the results.
It is the same for all fields of knowledge which made such ratings.

If you continue to use examples that are poor equivalents, skepticism will continue to be the response.
Sure, a sports organization can come up with a winner, using rather easy to create heuristics. Number of events won, judges scores and the relevant criteria and so on.

This is nothing like evaluating a field of inquiry like science and fields of knowledge in general. The gymnastics organization doesn't have to come up with an epistemology to evauluate anything remotely like the complexity of your own list of criteria. And I will be they can give a clear step by step process for the evaluations. I'm sure they have criteria that that to be met for events and judges, for example, and the exact weighting schemes for anything that gives points. You haven't done this and I can understand why. The project would be unbelievably complex. You have not done what that organization has done. And given that they are not placing themselves in a meta-position - where they evaluate all fields of knowledge, they can come up with criteria just for their field. You have to come up with criteria for all fields of knowledge, which you have presented as a list of abstract evaluations and then show how you create numbers for each of those, how you prioritize those ratings and how you add them up. Then you also have to, just as the gymnastics organization I am very sure does, explain the criteria for the judges.

What are the criteria you meet to judge fields of inquiry in general?
What is your weighting heuristic for each of the categories?
What period of time are you evaluating? (the gymnastic rating seems to be for a year's period. who knows what you are evaluating)
How did you come up with a number for, for example, abstractness? What was the number? What was the process of evaluation? What kind of epistemology did you use to determine that number?

The gymnastics organization could produce criteria that judges have to meet, what leads to a high score (and probably down to specific point numbers) in all the specific categories they judge on?

None of this have you done.

You just threw out numbers. And it is clear you never went through the kind of clear process that the gymnastics organization could produce if they were sued, for example. They could immediate present clear representations of their criteria, judges qualifications, specific evaluation forms from the judges, how points are generated...the whole shabang. And they wouldn't have to compare themselves to other types of epistemology and fields of inquiry. You do. You'd have to explain what FSK you are using to judge all FSKs.

It's certainly possible to do a vastly better job at this than you are doing. I think there would still be philosophical problems that the gymnastics organization does not have to deal with. It is a contractual process. People agree to join and be judged adn so on.

So, live up to the vastly easier to meet criteria that the gymnatics organization already meets. But you can't and won't try.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 6:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 3:05 am I am interested.
I still do not understand your basis of "cooking made up numbers"? because what I am doing is being done commonly in rating and comparison in the various fields of knowledge.

For example in sports, e.g. that is an objective fact [i.e. a fact of sports] that Simone Biles is the 2023 Women Overall World Champion based on the criteria and weightages agreed by the International Gymnastics Federation and those who participated in the competition and all those who reported on the results.
It is the same for all fields of knowledge which made such ratings.

If you continue to use examples that are poor equivalents, skepticism will continue to be the response.
Sure, a sports organization can come up with a winner, using rather easy to create heuristics. Number of events won, judges scores and the relevant criteria and so on.

This is nothing like evaluating a field of inquiry like science and fields of knowledge in general. The gymnastics organization doesn't have to come up with an epistemology to evauluate anything remotely like the complexity of your own list of criteria. And I will be they can give a clear step by step process for the evaluations. I'm sure they have criteria that that to be met for events and judges, for example, and the exact weighting schemes for anything that gives points. You haven't done this and I can understand why. The project would be unbelievably complex. You have not done what that organization has done. And given that they are not placing themselves in a meta-position - where they evaluate all fields of knowledge, they can come up with criteria just for their field. You have to come up with criteria for all fields of knowledge, which you have presented as a list of abstract evaluations and then show how you create numbers for each of those, how you prioritize those ratings and how you add them up. Then you also have to, just as the gymnastics organization I am very sure does, explain the criteria for the judges.

What are the criteria you meet to judge fields of inquiry in general?
What is your weighting heuristic for each of the categories?
What period of time are you evaluating? (the gymnastic rating seems to be for a year's period. who knows what you are evaluating)
How did you come up with a number for, for example, abstractness? What was the number? What was the process of evaluation? What kind of epistemology did you use to determine that number?

The gymnastics organization could produce criteria that judges have to meet, what leads to a high score (and probably down to specific point numbers) in all the specific categories they judge on?

None of this have you done.

You just threw out numbers. And it is clear you never went through the kind of clear process that the gymnastics organization could produce if they were sued, for example. They could immediate present clear representations of their criteria, judges qualifications, specific evaluation forms from the judges, how points are generated...the whole shabang. And they wouldn't have to compare themselves to other types of epistemology and fields of inquiry. You do. You'd have to explain what FSK you are using to judge all FSKs.

It's certainly possible to do a vastly better job at this than you are doing. I think there would still be philosophical problems that the gymnastics organization does not have to deal with. It is a contractual process. People agree to join and be judged adn so on.

So, live up to the vastly easier to meet criteria that the gymnatics organization already meets. But you can't and won't try.

The contention here is whether sporting results in the above case are objective facts or not?
You have not addressed the above question?
Are sporting results conditioned upon a sport Federation like the above case are objective facts or not?

Whatever you think, the above are objective sporting facts.
Just google 'sporting facts'.

My general principle is,
Whatever is fact, truth, reality, knowledge must be conditioned to a specific human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.

As such, as long as I can present a specific human-based moral FSR-FSK, the resultants from it are objective moral facts.

What is critical is they are objective moral facts which PH and the like contend there are no objective moral facts.

The question then is, to what degrees of objectivity are these objective moral facts.
This can be ascertain by comparing it to the Standard, i.e. the scientific FSK as a comparison.

AT this point my focus is on the principles and the methodology.
As such, the critique should focus in the principles and methodology I am going to use. Since I am adopting generally accepted practices, I don't anticipate much of a critique here.

My goal is to bring it as near as possible to the scientific FSK.
I have not YET gone into the details of how my proposed human-based morality-proper FSK will measure up the standard. So your condemnation of my measures is a non-starter.
When I get into the details, I will have to comply with the principles and the methodology and that will not be make-up numbers when it is peer reviewed.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 3:05 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 11:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 6:46 am
In assessing the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs, everyone must agree to a selected set of criteria, i.e. there must be a common denominator, thus, using the same set of criteria for all assessments of FSKs.
Without agreement to a same set of criteria to be used, that would be a non-starter.

One necessary fundamental basis is, all those who agree must have a reasonable degree of rationality and critical thinking ability at least to the critical variable.
That some theistic religions [fundamentally irrational] have agreed with certain scientific facts, these theists must have agreed to the fundamental criteria of the scientific-FSK, .e.g. empirical-evidence-based, verifiability, etc.

Thus when comparing the credibility and objectivity for science and say, history, both assessment must use the same set of criteria.
Science [at its best*] relies on a focus on direct empirical evidence based on observations on the present as much as possible.
History [at its best] relies on indirect [do not focus on] empirical evidences of the past and expert opinions.
* i.e. comparing the different "at their best" not the best-of-one with the worst-of-another.

That science [the best of] focus on the present and that History [at its best] is based on the past [that cannot be repeated in the future] is already a clue on why History cannot be more credible than science.

If direct empirical evidence has a weightage of 0.75/1.00, it is obvious the final result that the credibility and objectivity [based on the same set of criteria] of history [do not rely on direct empirical evidence] will be significantly lower than that of science's.
Get it? hope you do to save me time, if not, I will give further explanations.

So, with Science as the most credible and objective, the comparison for theology, history, linguistic, economics, politics, legal, etc. must be based on the same set of criteria.

Where parties cannot reach upon a same set of criteria, they must trash it out [based on rationality and critical thinking] to reach consensus.
It is unlikely that any rational person will reject the criteria of empirical evidence based on evidence, indirect empirical evidences, verifiability, testability, falsifiability and the like as the critical criteria.
The very religious theists, e.g. Newton, Mendel and a whole load of scientist who are theists had agreed to the above criteria that support the credibility and objectivity of science.

It is unlikely any rational person will reject the major criteria within the same set of criteria. If they do not accept certain criteria [likely to be insignificant] they can qualify those exclusions when using the ratings on FSKs based on the same set of criteria.

That same set of criteria to be used for all FSKs is not carved in stones, but can be changed only when very necessary.

That's just a longer recipe for cooking made up numbers than the previous one.

There is still a difference of type between a measurement and whatever name you are giving to all that assessing you are describing there.

I am interested.
I still do not understand your basis of "cooking made up numbers"? because what I am doing is being done commonly in rating and comparison in the various fields of knowledge.

It is, but in all those cases they understand what they are doing and they know they aren't measuring immeasurable phenomena, you alone don't seem to get it.

Your examples are garbage about sports and miss world contests, let's do this like academics. The field of economics spawns many such measures and indexes. Here's the happiest countries in the World index for 2023
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world
Finland tops the chart with 7.842 happinesses, Albania ranks 83rd with 5.28.
They didn't measure actual happiness, they did something exactly like the thing you do to make up an index to represent it using Gallup polling data.

You see inflation figures on the news every now and then? Inflation isn't a thing that actually be measured, you track it with an index of common daily items that households purchase. You susbtitute something you can measure and use it to tell you the rough parameters of something you can't measure but do know is there. But once you fool yourself your number measures directly, you can fool yourself that fiddling with the number changes somethign about the phenomenon, and that's never true.

Your FSK that you use to assign made up numbers to evaluate other FSK things is all the way down the rabbit hole chugging on the kool aid. There's no plausible basis for it, no reason for it to exist, nothing to converge on, and it can only represent your personal opinion that doesn't count for shit.

The indexes that serious prefessionals in economics, public health, international realtions and so on construct often do useful work for us. They target something that can at least usefully be represented via index and typically it is something important enough that we feel it is worth the effort and innacuracy (there might be several competing indexes). None of that is true of a model that compares the "credibility" of Art History to that of Physics.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 2:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 3:05 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 11:37 am
That's just a longer recipe for cooking made up numbers than the previous one.

There is still a difference of type between a measurement and whatever name you are giving to all that assessing you are describing there.

I am interested.
I still do not understand your basis of "cooking made up numbers"? because what I am doing is being done commonly in rating and comparison in the various fields of knowledge.

It is, but in all those cases they understand what they are doing and they know they aren't measuring immeasurable phenomena, you alone don't seem to get it.

Your examples are garbage about sports and miss world contests, let's do this like academics. The field of economics spawns many such measures and indexes. Here's the happiest countries in the World index for 2023
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world
Finland tops the chart with 7.842 happinesses, Albania ranks 83rd with 5.28.
They didn't measure actual happiness, they did something exactly like the thing you do to make up an index to represent it using Gallup polling data.

You see inflation figures on the news every now and then? Inflation isn't a thing that actually be measured, you track it with an index of common daily items that households purchase. You susbtitute something you can measure and use it to tell you the rough parameters of something you can't measure but do know is there. But once you fool yourself your number measures directly, you can fool yourself that fiddling with the number changes somethign about the phenomenon, and that's never true.

Your FSK that you use to assign made up numbers to evaluate other FSK things is all the way down the rabbit hole chugging on the kool aid. There's no plausible basis for it, no reason for it to exist, nothing to converge on, and it can only represent your personal opinion that doesn't count for shit.

The indexes that serious prefessionals in economics, public health, international realtions and so on construct often do useful work for us. They target something that can at least usefully be represented via index and typically it is something important enough that we feel it is worth the effort and innacuracy (there might be several competing indexes). None of that is true of a model that compares the "credibility" of Art History to that of Physics.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and hasty.

The main question you ignored is, are the above results objective by definition, i.e.
as long as it is FSK-ed [which is their case] there is objectivity.
You have avoided this question re "Are they Objective"?
Btw, not your sense of objectivity which is illusory.

My view is that all the above measurements and indices are FSK-ed objective [by definition re being FSK-ed].
What is critical is they must be transparent with the criteria, conditions and methodology they used in collecting data.

In contrast to the scientific FSK and using the same set of criteria, I would rate 'the Happiness Index" and the like with very low objective because the data is very subjective in contrast to the Scientific FSK [at its best].

As I had pointed out, whatever the measurements and indices, they must be compared with the scientific FSK [at its best] using the same set of criteria to assess their degrees of credibility and objectivity.

As I had asserted, my proposed morality-proper-FSK will be in theory and principles be tuned to as near as possible to the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK, i.e. the major inputs into my FSK will be facts from the scientific FSK.

I have not fully laid out the full details of my proposed morality-proper-FSK yet, so you are off target on condemning my FSK in practice.
What you can critique at present are the theory, principles and methodology involved.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 2:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 3:05 am
I am interested.
I still do not understand your basis of "cooking made up numbers"? because what I am doing is being done commonly in rating and comparison in the various fields of knowledge.

It is, but in all those cases they understand what they are doing and they know they aren't measuring immeasurable phenomena, you alone don't seem to get it.

Your examples are garbage about sports and miss world contests, let's do this like academics. The field of economics spawns many such measures and indexes. Here's the happiest countries in the World index for 2023
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world
Finland tops the chart with 7.842 happinesses, Albania ranks 83rd with 5.28.
They didn't measure actual happiness, they did something exactly like the thing you do to make up an index to represent it using Gallup polling data.

You see inflation figures on the news every now and then? Inflation isn't a thing that actually be measured, you track it with an index of common daily items that households purchase. You susbtitute something you can measure and use it to tell you the rough parameters of something you can't measure but do know is there. But once you fool yourself your number measures directly, you can fool yourself that fiddling with the number changes somethign about the phenomenon, and that's never true.

Your FSK that you use to assign made up numbers to evaluate other FSK things is all the way down the rabbit hole chugging on the kool aid. There's no plausible basis for it, no reason for it to exist, nothing to converge on, and it can only represent your personal opinion that doesn't count for shit.

The indexes that serious prefessionals in economics, public health, international realtions and so on construct often do useful work for us. They target something that can at least usefully be represented via index and typically it is something important enough that we feel it is worth the effort and innacuracy (there might be several competing indexes). None of that is true of a model that compares the "credibility" of Art History to that of Physics.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and hasty.

The main question you ignored is, are the above results objective by definition, i.e.
as long as it is FSK-ed [which is their case] there is objectivity.
You have avoided this question re "Are they Objective"?
Btw, not your sense of objectivity which is illusory.

There really is an obvious difference of kind between measuring something that is an enumerable property of an external object and just getting some men with beards to imagine a number for an uncoutnable property projected onto a invisible phenomenon. The more you avoid it the worse it looks for you. You aren't fooling anyone and not coincidentally, your FSK has zero adherents because you do too much of that sort of thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am My view is that all the above measurements and indices are FSK-ed objective [by definition re being FSK-ed].
What is critical is they must be transparent with the criteria, conditions and methodology they used in collecting data.

The people who created them are fortunately not so blind as you. They created a measure of a basket of goods in pace of measuring inflation because they understood that they needed a proxy. You would have assembled a collection of experts to just imagine a number for inflation, which is all you are doing for morality and also all you are doing for the silly intra-FSK-credibility thing you are up to now.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am In contrast to the scientific FSK and using the same set of criteria, I would rate 'the Happiness Index" and the like with very low objective because the data is very subjective in contrast to the Scientific FSK [at its best].

Nobody cares. I didn't present it for your approval, I was showing you how this stuff works when sane humans cook these bullshit indeces up, knwong that they are of very restricted use because, and I cannot stress this enough... happiness cannot be measured, so if you are interested in tracking it you have to use a proxy and for that you have to take what you can get.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am As I had pointed out, whatever the measurements and indices, they must be compared with the scientific FSK

Why? They aren't science and they aren't for answering science questions, so science is neither here nor there. There really is no reason at all to compare any of these non science things to science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am As I had asserted, my proposed morality-proper-FSK will be in theory and principles be tuned to as near as possible to the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK, i.e. the major inputs into my FSK will be facts from the scientific FSK.

That's just a weird way to promise that your FSK will be shit. Morals aren't a valid object of scientific enquiry, therefore science isn't a useful guide to how to enquire into morals.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am I have not fully laid out the full details of my proposed morality-proper-FSK yet, so you are off target on condemning my FSK in practice.
What you can critique at present are the theory, principles and methodology involved.

Your FSK is going to be a turd. It is going to be about misunderstood principles of objectivity which you analyse only in terms of composition while failing entirely to grasp the importance of function. It's going to be pointlessly modelled on science. It will be the product of a weird obsession you have for categorising things instead of understanding them. And it will be the product of your enormous hubris, so it will fail just becasue you are too arrogant to learn when questioned, instead of just calling people gnats.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 4:02 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 2:16 pm
It is, but in all those cases they understand what they are doing and they know they aren't measuring immeasurable phenomena, you alone don't seem to get it.

Your examples are garbage about sports and miss world contests, let's do this like academics. The field of economics spawns many such measures and indexes. Here's the happiest countries in the World index for 2023
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world
Finland tops the chart with 7.842 happinesses, Albania ranks 83rd with 5.28.
They didn't measure actual happiness, they did something exactly like the thing you do to make up an index to represent it using Gallup polling data.

You see inflation figures on the news every now and then? Inflation isn't a thing that actually be measured, you track it with an index of common daily items that households purchase. You susbtitute something you can measure and use it to tell you the rough parameters of something you can't measure but do know is there. But once you fool yourself your number measures directly, you can fool yourself that fiddling with the number changes somethign about the phenomenon, and that's never true.

Your FSK that you use to assign made up numbers to evaluate other FSK things is all the way down the rabbit hole chugging on the kool aid. There's no plausible basis for it, no reason for it to exist, nothing to converge on, and it can only represent your personal opinion that doesn't count for shit.

The indexes that serious prefessionals in economics, public health, international realtions and so on construct often do useful work for us. They target something that can at least usefully be represented via index and typically it is something important enough that we feel it is worth the effort and innacuracy (there might be several competing indexes). None of that is true of a model that compares the "credibility" of Art History to that of Physics.

Your thinking is too shallow, narrow and hasty.

The main question you ignored is, are the above results objective by definition, i.e.
as long as it is FSK-ed [which is their case] there is objectivity.
You have avoided this question re "Are they Objective"?
Btw, not your sense of objectivity which is illusory.

There really is an obvious difference of kind between measuring something that is an enumerable property of an external object and just getting some men with beards to imagine a number for an uncoutnable property projected onto a invisible phenomenon. The more you avoid it the worse it looks for you. You aren't fooling anyone and not coincidentally, your FSK has zero adherents because you do too much of that sort of thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am My view is that all the above measurements and indices are FSK-ed objective [by definition re being FSK-ed].
What is critical is they must be transparent with the criteria, conditions and methodology they used in collecting data.

The people who created them are fortunately not so blind as you. They created a measure of a basket of goods in pace of measuring inflation because they understood that they needed a proxy. You would have assembled a collection of experts to just imagine a number for inflation, which is all you are doing for morality and also all you are doing for the silly intra-FSK-credibility thing you are up to now.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am In contrast to the scientific FSK and using the same set of criteria, I would rate 'the Happiness Index" and the like with very low objective because the data is very subjective in contrast to the Scientific FSK [at its best].

Nobody cares. I didn't present it for your approval, I was showing you how this stuff works when sane humans cook these bullshit indeces up, knwong that they are of very restricted use because, and I cannot stress this enough... happiness cannot be measured, so if you are interested in tracking it you have to use a proxy and for that you have to take what you can get.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am As I had pointed out, whatever the measurements and indices, they must be compared with the scientific FSK

Why? They aren't science and they aren't for answering science questions, so science is neither here nor there. There really is no reason at all to compare any of these non science things to science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am As I had asserted, my proposed morality-proper-FSK will be in theory and principles be tuned to as near as possible to the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSK, i.e. the major inputs into my FSK will be facts from the scientific FSK.

That's just a weird way to promise that your FSK will be shit. Morals aren't a valid object of scientific enquiry, therefore science isn't a useful guide to how to enquire into morals.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 3:58 am I have not fully laid out the full details of my proposed morality-proper-FSK yet, so you are off target on condemning my FSK in practice.
What you can critique at present are the theory, principles and methodology involved.

Your FSK is going to be a turd. It is going to be about misunderstood principles of objectivity which you analyse only in terms of composition while failing entirely to grasp the importance of function. It's going to be pointlessly modelled on science. It will be the product of a weird obsession you have for categorising things instead of understanding them. And it will be the product of your enormous hubris, so it will fail just becasue you are too arrogant to learn when questioned, instead of just calling people gnats.

ChatGpt [with reservations] have access to all that is accessible to it on the internet up to Sept 2021.
Based on the above, ChatGpt agreed with the general concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
ChatGpt even agreed with my concept and approach to the quantification of the degrees of reliability, credibility and objectivity of the FSK.
Generally, not taking into account the specifics. ChatGpt may give different wei

If ChatGpt had assessed my proposal based on its extensive literature review, that my FSK is 'turd' it would have highlighted its weaknesses or that it is not tenable.

Who are you [relative a philosophical gnat] [with a fundamentalistic ideology of an illusory mind-independent idea] in this case compared to ChatGpt's review of this particular topic re the FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:00 am Who are you [relative a philosophical gnat] [with a fundamentalistic ideology of an illusory mind-independent idea] in this case compared to ChatGpt's review of this particular topic re the FSK.

Well I am a human for a start.

You always hide the prompts so we can't see you beg a computer to say what a clever boy you are. Now you aren't even showing the result, just telling us the computer agrees with you?



There really is an obvious difference of kind between measuring something that is an enumerable property of an external object and just getting some men with beards to imagine a number for an uncoutnable property projected onto a invisible phenomenon. The more you avoid it the worse it looks for you. I bet you weren't able to make ChatGPT ignore that point, and that is why you didn't print the output.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 4:02 pm And it will be the product of your enormous hubris, so it will fail just becasue you are too arrogant to learn when questioned, instead of just calling people gnats.

Who are you [relative a philosophical gnat]

Thank you for making my point for me there.

Atla the KindiGnat wrote:On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational it is to develop a moral system that is entirely independent of moral rightness and wrongness but is, at the same time, based on the inherent human moral cognitive faculties, and at the same time, it partially rejects the idea that the moral system should be based on evolutionary psychology?

ChatGPT wrote: Rating the rationality of developing a moral system on a scale of 1 to 10 is subjective and depends on one's philosophical perspective. However, I can provide some insights into the various aspects of this proposal.

Independence from moral rightness and wrongness: Developing a moral system that is entirely independent of traditional notions of moral rightness and wrongness could be seen as a novel and unconventional approach. The rationality of this idea would likely be relatively low on the scale (closer to 1) because it diverges significantly from conventional moral philosophy, which generally centers on notions of right and wrong.

Based on inherent human moral cognitive faculties: Basing a moral system on inherent human moral cognitive faculties is a reasonable proposition, as it acknowledges the role of human nature in shaping moral intuitions. The rationality of this aspect would be relatively high (closer to 9 or 10) since it draws from cognitive science and psychology.

Partial rejection of evolutionary psychology: The partial rejection of the idea that the moral system should be entirely based on evolutionary psychology suggests a willingness to consider multiple influences on human morality. This can be seen as a rational approach, recognizing that moral systems may have multiple sources. The rationality of this aspect would likely be moderate (around 5 or 6), as it depends on the specific reasons for the rejection and the alternative sources proposed.

In summary, the overall rationality of the proposal may vary depending on the specific details and arguments provided for each aspect. It's essential to engage in a thorough philosophical discussion and consider different perspectives to determine the rationality of such a moral system.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:00 am Based on the above, ChatGpt agreed with the general concept of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

It's an extremely general, abstract concept. I would be shocked if Chatgpt wouldn't think it was an ok idea. That different areas of knowledge have their own frameworks and methodologies.y

ChatGpt even agreed with my concept and approach to the quantification of the degrees of reliability, credibility and objectivity of the FSK.
Generally, not taking into account the specifics. ChatGpt may give different wei

One can certainly engage in the process, what we've been reacting to is coming up with numbers out of thin air.

And remember you got those reactions BEFORE you started actually trying to set up the heuristics. IOW even you seem to agree that for the reader the numbers are coming out of thin air. But I don't think this was acknowledged. That in response to criticism you realized/decided that you needed to show some actual steps and there was absolutely not reason for us to take those numbers seriously.

Now you have started to work out/display steps, but there are still abritrary - certainly from our perspective - leaps. There was no justication for the weighting system you used - and it is a weighting system that no scientist, I think would go along with. That the framework is empirical alone can get 80 or 86% score.

But there were other problems:
1) the numbers are still arising just from your intuition - as far as we can see. Yes, you produced later steps in the process, but these came out of your intuition AND they now get numbers that you simply produce out of nothing AS FAR AS WE CAN SEE. Even if we may be sympathetic to the general tendencies in your guesstimates.
2) there is no evidence of any evaluative process. How did you approach the mass of science and get numbers? And what FSK evaluates each of those categories? And then, why are those categories so overlapping?

You ask the gymnast organization about how a gymnast got ten points during a gymnast event and they can point to the events she entered, the judges, the criteria they used IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE - and the qualifications of the judges. They can show us the point of measurement.

Which doesn't mean the points are correct or not. But it does show where the numbers are coming from and why the person giving producing the numbers was qualified and how the specific criterian evaluated a specific 3 minute performance.

The equivalents with science would be daunting. But even look at one research project would give us a sense of the process.

Or an explanation for how you can evaluation all of physics in a way that is somehow parallel to the gymnasts. Perhaps you don't need to look at the mass of scientific 'performances' but then what are you looking at? How does one measure the objectiveness, degree of empiricalness and falsifiability of one science, let alone all of them, let alone FSKs with quite different methodologies and models.

If ChatGpt had assessed my proposal based on its extensive literature review, that my FSK is 'turd' it would have highlighted its weaknesses or that it is not tenable.

Who are you [relative a philosophical gnat] [with a fundamentalistic ideology of an illusory mind-independent idea] in this case compared to ChatGpt's review of this particular topic re the FSK.

He's a gnat who noticed a problem that in fact you seem to be taking steps to fix. And you didn't seem aware of the problem before that.

The gymnast organization likely had thousands of meetings including the participation of all sorts of experts, legal, sports science, statisticians, perhaps, who knows, but I'd bet big we are talking about a long interaction where the kinds of problems we are pointing out were taken care of.

And it should be noted that the gymnast organization is boosting its sport. People get interested by prizes and awards and heroes. It's like the oscars. It's not the same kind of FSK as either science or theology. It is PR and business much closer to the center. Throw the word ontology at their experts and they will roll their eyes.

Yes, people get nasty here.

You could try to just collaborate with Chatgpt, but you won't get things pointed out like you will dealing with humans.

Until you actually lay out the nature of the Meta-FSK that is evaluation other FSKs and show us that FSK actually evaluating things - rather then making estimates from your individual sense, intuition, about FSKs it doesn't come anywhere close to the rigor the gymnastic organization has shown in regard to a much, much simpler task.

If you actually think Chatgpt will give you better feedback and bring you closer to a published book, or being considered some kind of expert or consultant, or a career, well then you're wasting time posting here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:17 pm Now you have started to work out/display steps, but there are still abritrary - certainly from our perspective - leaps. There was no justication for the weighting system you used - and it is a weighting system that no scientist, I think would go along with. That the framework is empirical alone can get 80 or 86% score.

Those weighting systems are profoundly unscientific, and in context that is an additional problem because those weightings don't attempt to get to any truth, they are about consensus and decision making. You see those spreadsheets where input 1 is weighted at .4 and input 2 is weignted at .1 in procurement, project management and logistics meetings.

When scientists use them it would be for some budgetary or procurement purpose, deciding which fridge monitors to buy, or which cloud to store their experiment data in (guess what the last two such spreadsheets I saw were for).

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 2:06 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:17 pm Now you have started to work out/display steps, but there are still abritrary - certainly from our perspective - leaps. There was no justication for the weighting system you used - and it is a weighting system that no scientist, I think would go along with. That the framework is empirical alone can get 80 or 86% score.

Those weighting systems are profoundly unscientific, and in context that is an additional problem because those weightings don't attempt to get to any truth, they are about consensus and decision making. You see those spreadsheets where input 1 is weighted at .4 and input 2 is weignted at .1 in procurement, project management and logistics meetings.

When scientists use them it would be for some budgetary or procurement purpose, deciding which fridge monitors to buy, or which cloud to store their experiment data in (guess what the last two such spreadsheets I saw were for).

Sure. Part of my reaction to his starting to lay out his system, ad hoc as he is, is that it's a good thing if he tries because once he starts trying to show the steps, I think it will get harder and harder to deny the problems. (I know this is interpersonally naive, but hey, so would nearly any response be). His response to you above was very abstract and I would guess his question to Chatgpt was very abstract. Once he gets into the brass tacks of actually generating numbers and not out his guesstimates, he (well, in any case someone) might start to realize there's a problem.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 9:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:00 am Who are you [relative a philosophical gnat] [with a fundamentalistic ideology of an illusory mind-independent idea] in this case compared to ChatGpt's review of this particular topic re the FSK.

Well I am a human for a start.

Re you condemnation of my FSK approach to objectivity.
To me you are relatively a philosophical gnat in kindi class, i.e. merely confined to some fundamentalistic ideology of an illusory mind-independent idea.

You always hide the prompts so we can't see you beg a computer to say what a clever boy you are. Now you aren't even showing the result, just telling us the computer agrees with you?

I wrote;
"ChatGpt's review of this particular topic re the FSK"
I was referring to the topic, a subject and concept of 'what is a FSK'.
I had posted before that ChatGpt [with internet "omniscience" up to 9/2021] agreed with me on the concept and use of a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
If ChatGpt answered a "what is" question, there is no need to post the prompt, because the question is implied in the answer.
I had posted the prompts [question] to Chatgpt where relevant.

In the above, I was not referring to any exercise of rating of an FSK with weightages and score.
I had not asked ChatGpt to review any of my FSK ratings.

There really is an obvious difference of kind between measuring something that is an enumerable property of an external object and just getting some men with beards to imagine a number for an uncoutnable property projected onto a invisible phenomenon.
The more you avoid it the worse it looks for you.
I bet you weren't able to make ChatGPT ignore that point, and that is why you didn't print the output.

As stated, I had not asked ChatGpt to review any of my FSK ratings.

As I had argued,
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your [as with PH's] sense of what is reality, fact and objectivity re mind-independence is grounded on an illusion. i.e. the ideology of Philosophical Realism.


Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's [& FDP's] What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

I have argued why the FSK approach is the most optimal and realistic.
Thus my 'measurement' of the objectivity of FSKs is optimal, realistic and pragmatic.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:17 pm .......

see
viewtopic.php?p=676938#p676938

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 2:06 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 1:17 pm Now you have started to work out/display steps, but there are still abritrary - certainly from our perspective - leaps. There was no justication for the weighting system you used - and it is a weighting system that no scientist, I think would go along with. That the framework is empirical alone can get 80 or 86% score.

Those weighting systems are profoundly unscientific, and in context that is an additional problem because those weightings don't attempt to get to any truth, they are about consensus and decision making. You see those spreadsheets where input 1 is weighted at .4 and input 2 is weignted at .1 in procurement, project management and logistics meetings.

When scientists use them it would be for some budgetary or procurement purpose, deciding which fridge monitors to buy, or which cloud to store their experiment data in (guess what the last two such spreadsheets I saw were for).

Your above view is shoddy.
Note, we are not scientists doing a scientific experiments.

This is a philosophical reflection and exercise within the

Philosophy of Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Philosophy of Objectivity
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

I have not dug into it, but I believe scientists do use some sort of weightages in their experiments and arriving at their conclusion. I will research into this.

ETA:
Here is a quickie from ChatGpt [with reservations];

Question wrote:Quantification and Weightages:
Do scientists of the natural sciences use 'weightages' in the experiment and arriving at their conclusions?
If yes, please give examples.

ChatGPT wrote: In the natural sciences, scientists often use quantification and weightages in their experiments to assign numerical values to different factors and determine their relative importance. This helps in analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and making informed decisions. Here are a few examples:

Chemistry: Stoichiometry
In chemistry, scientists use stoichiometry to determine the quantities of reactants and products in a chemical reaction. Each element and compound has a specific molar mass, and these are used as weightages to balance chemical equations and calculate the amounts of substances involved.

Physics: Gravitational Force
In physics, when studying gravitational interactions, scientists use weightages to represent the masses of objects. The force of gravity between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Mass serves as a weightage in this context.

Biology: DNA Sequencing
In molecular biology, when analyzing DNA sequences, certain nucleotide positions may be given more weightage than others based on their functional significance. For example, mutations in specific regions of a gene may have a greater impact on protein function, and researchers might assign different weightages to these positions in their analysis.

Environmental Science: Pollution Indices
Environmental scientists often use indices to quantify pollution levels. Different pollutants may be assigned weightages based on their impact on the environment and human health. For example, in air quality indices, concentrations of different pollutants like particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), ozone, and nitrogen dioxide may be given different weightages based on their health effects.

Psychology: Surveys and Questionnaires
In psychological research, researchers often use surveys and questionnaires to collect data. The responses to different questions may be assigned weightages to reflect their importance in the overall analysis. This helps in quantifying subjective data and drawing meaningful conclusions.

Economics: Weighted Averages
While economics is a social science, it often involves quantitative analysis. In economic indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), different goods and services may be assigned weightages based on their relative importance in the average consumer's basket. This weighted average is then used to track changes in the cost of living over time.
In each of these examples, the concept of assigning weightages is used to give appropriate importance to different factors, making the analysis more reflective of the real-world scenario being studied.

Noted, Environment, Psychology, Economics do not belong to the natural sciences per se, but that would be added knowledge.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 5:21 am Noted, Environment, Psychology, Economics do not belong to the natural sciences per se, but that would be added knowledge.

But those are the ones using a weighting that is vaguely like yours. The gravity one isn't similar in type to yours, none of the numbers is made up. The psych and economics indeces sometimes do work in a slightly similar way to your thing, so those are the most useful things for you to refernce. But they don't pretend to be actually measuring trust, happiness, or confidence in the way that you insist you measure such immeasurables as morality and credibility. They just hope to fluctuate in a useful way with those phenomena, which is something you are too much of a gnat to learn from.