Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated

[Iwannaplato]

You got too carried away withIthe term 'FSK'.

A FSK is a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

We use some sort of Quantifying Technique, methods and tools to determine credibility of 'Framework and System' of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
Because it is some sort of Quantifying Technique i.e. a tool, I would not term it as a FSK per se.

I notice that you don't use FSK for it. However, it is a way of determining knowledge, specifically which FSK's are the most accurate. So, it entails and evaluation system and epistemology, which is what FSKs do/are.

Of are you saying that one can come to knowledge without the use of an FSK?

In this case, there is the question of the efficiency of these sort of tools or techniques.
Are there better techniques or tools than the ones I used in the OP.

Sure

Note: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods or Tools

Quantitative research is a research strategy that focuses on quantifying the collection and analysis of data.[1] It is formed from a deductive approach where emphasis is placed on the testing of theory, shaped by empiricist and positivist philosophies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research

Sure, but you can't evaluate FSKs just on data. And the list of criteria you have, when you evaluate science (and presumably other FSKs, is not merely running numbers through some algorithms. You have to decide how much, for example, of what the FSK uses is empirical evidence, so that's qualitiative. This counts as empirical, this does not. This is true also for other criteria on your list. There's no simple set of statistics for each FSK. You have to go into each FSK and make decisions about what counts as X and what doesn't. Same goes for Knowlege. Logical coherence is not just running numbers, you'd be looking for soundness of arguments and methodologyies, again qualitative. Then you also have to justify your model, itself and the weights you use. You gave Empirical the highest weight, by far. This was not a numbers/quantitative decision. And so on.

You have a framework, your criteria, and a system (algorithms) for gaining knowledge (about FSKs and their accuracy). That's an FSK.

Just because final steps, in all the substeps get a number, doesn't mean it's quantitative only, or even in the main. To get to what numbers to look for, how you generate the numbers who you move from qualititavie evaluations that you make WITHIN this metafsk , which numbers get the higher priority are all qualitative evaluations.

If this FSK didn't have processes that led to numbers from qualitative assessments, ok, fine. But the list of criteria shows the the qualitative roots of the fsk. It is precisely evaluating quality!! Includes judgments of what is quality and what we don't need to focus on and then how to come up with numbers, which are then run through algorithms, themselves with built in ideas of quality.

And, of course, you never have quantitative data in a vaccuum. It's always attached to an FSK. It's sociology, or geology, or meteorology and so on. You can't have meaningful quantitative without it being part of an FSK. Or what you call an FSK, using your term for convenience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You got too carried away withIthe term 'FSK'.

A FSK is a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

We use some sort of Quantifying Technique, methods and tools to determine credibility of 'Framework and System' of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
Because it is some sort of Quantifying Technique i.e. a tool, I would not term it as a FSK per se.

I notice that you don't use FSK for it. However, it is a way of determining knowledge, specifically which FSK's are the most accurate. So, it entails and evaluation system and epistemology, which is what FSKs do/are.

Of are you saying that one can come to knowledge without the use of an FSK?

In this case, there is the question of the efficiency of these sort of tools or techniques.
Are there better techniques or tools than the ones I used in the OP.

Sure

Note: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods or Tools

Quantitative research is a research strategy that focuses on quantifying the collection and analysis of data.[1] It is formed from a deductive approach where emphasis is placed on the testing of theory, shaped by empiricist and positivist philosophies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research

Sure, but you can't evaluate FSKs just on data. And the list of criteria you have, when you evaluate science (and presumably other FSKs, is not merely running numbers through some algorithms. You have to decide how much, for example, of what the FSK uses is empirical evidence, so that's qualitiative. This counts as empirical, this does not. This is true also for other criteria on your list. There's no simple set of statistics for each FSK. You have to go into each FSK and make decisions about what counts as X and what doesn't. Same goes for Knowlege. Logical coherence is not just running numbers, you'd be looking for soundness of arguments and methodologyies, again qualitative. Then you also have to justify your model, itself and the weights you use. You gave Empirical the highest weight, by far. This was not a numbers/quantitative decision. And so on.

You have a framework, your criteria, and a system (algorithms) for gaining knowledge (about FSKs and their accuracy). That's an FSK.

Just because final steps, in all the substeps get a number, doesn't mean it's quantitative only, or even in the main. To get to what numbers to look for, how you generate the numbers who you move from qualititavie evaluations that you make WITHIN this metafsk , which numbers get the higher priority are all qualitative evaluations.

If this FSK didn't have processes that led to numbers from qualitative assessments, ok, fine. But the list of criteria shows the the qualitative roots of the fsk. It is precisely evaluating quality!! Includes judgments of what is quality and what we don't need to focus on and then how to come up with numbers, which are then run through algorithms, themselves with built in ideas of quality.

And, of course, you never have quantitative data in a vaccuum. It's always attached to an FSK. It's sociology, or geology, or meteorology and so on. You can't have meaningful quantitative without it being part of an FSK. Or what you call an FSK, using your term for convenience.

FSR & FSK refer to a field of knowledge, e.g. science, history, sociology, or geology, theology or meteorology and so on.

Yes, quantitative and qualitative research methods are always [there could be exception I have not thought of yet] related to an FSR-FSK just an intelligence, educating, reflecting, thinking, reading, other research methods, writing, and the like, but I would not term these as FSR-FSK per se.

These tools, techniques, methods, and the like has their own Framework and Systems but they are not specifically the FSR-FSK in terms of fields of knowledge and their realization.