is/ought, final answer

[Advocate]

Everything is potentially possible but only those things for which evidence concurs are rightly considered so. Merely possible things are literally indistinguishable from fiction. Epistemological warrant for belief cannot apply to the merely possible, it must be at minimum likely.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My question,
Btw, which are the notable philosophers you are a 50% fan/follower of?

I didn't say that I'm "50% a fan/follower" of anyone. What I said is that even for the philosophers that I'm a fan of, I tend to disagree with them at least 50% of the time.

Also:

Which notable philosophers which you are not a fan of at all, but at times rely on their philosophies to support your argument.

I don't ever rely on someone else's comments to support any argument. No argument would have more weight simply because someone else argued it.

At any rate, here are some of my favorite philosophers--this is not at all an exhaustive list; it's just a sampling of some of my favorites (and they're just in alphabetical order (by first letter)). I'm not a fan of everyone here for the same reasons (for example, I think that Aristotle was a horrible writer, but I admire his approach--his "program" for what he felt philosophy should be doing), but there's something about all of them that I'm a fan of:

Achille Varzi, AJ Ayer, Annette Baier, Aristotle, Augustine, Bertrand Russell, Colin McGinn, David Hume, Donald Davidson, Ernst Mach, G.E. Moore, George Santayana, Hans Reichenbach, John Searle, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Kit Fine, Marjorie Grene, Michael Martin, Michel Foucault, Ned Block, Paul Feyerabend, Plato (and Socrates via him), Richard Rorty, Robert Nozick, Rudolf Carnap, Susan Haack, Thomas Aquinas, WVO Quine

What is your philosophical stance with reference to reality?

We went over this already. I'm a realist, and re phil of perception, I'm a naive realist. I'm basically a "naturalist," and I'm a physicalist and a nominalist.

Noted the above.
I believe the above is VERY relevant especially in a philosophy forum.
Noted most of the philosophers [except the bolded] you are inclined to are philosophical realists and associated to Analytic Philosophy [Aquinas = Thomism].

I am embarking on reading Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae where it is relevant for my projects.

Why try to invent the wheel?? I believe it is most efficient to rely on the arguments of notable genius philosophers but first one must convinced the arguments are valid.
In addition one can prop up those arguments one think is not sufficient for one's purpose.

Is reality to you mind-independent, mind-codependent or minds-co-entanglement,
if not, what is your stance on reality?

Traditionally, "real" refers to "mind-independent." We don't have to use it that way (and of course it's very common in the modern era to use the term more broadly than this), but it's worth clarifying that on some readings, asking if reality is mind-independent is redundant.
Most of the world is mind-independent, but there are minds, and obviously we're often very concerned with (sometimes obsessed with) them. Plenty of things that we talk about are mental phenomena-only, but not everything is mental phenomena-only.
And of course, our beliefs, ideas, desires, etc. wind up having an impact on the mind-independent world. But most of what exists is mind-independent and we've had no impact on most of it.

It is obvious whatever is mental is mind-dependent. This is not in dispute.

The point here is,
Is Reality [other than mental things] independent or linked with human-minds.

From your views above, by definition, you [essentially and fundamentally] belong to the Philosophical Realism school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My view is Philosophical Realism is not realistic in the most ultimate sense of reality.
It is obvious Philosophical Realism is acceptable within common sense and the conventional sense. It is merely as assumption in Science.

The tenets of Philosophical Realism are like those of classical physics of Newton, etc. which works with mind-independent physical objects in the universe, but they are no more realistic when they get to Einstein's "Observers Effects" and those 'weird' events of Quantum Mechanics.

[Skepdick]

For you to bank on the above possible-impossibility is merely to fall into a loop, i.e. whatever you claim 'impossibility is possible' is not of absolute certainty, thus can be wrong and so onto an infinite regress.
Philosophically but we must be realistic.

Yes. And? It leads to undecidability.

I am being as realistic as my epistemology allows me to.

There is no way to decide between philosophies - all philosophies are equally worthless towards solving decidability.
All philosophies are equally worthless towards helping you choose a philosophy.

In order to be able to choose any philosophy you need a value-system.

Said simply: you have to solve the is-ought problem BEFORE you choose your philosophy.

Thus my claim, God is impossible to be real within the most realistic and credible FSR/FSK, i.e. the scientific FSR/FSK.

It's not impossible. It's just unscientific to consider the possibility.

Because it's untestable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For you to bank on the above possible-impossibility is merely to fall into a loop, i.e. whatever you claim 'impossibility is possible' is not of absolute certainty, thus can be wrong and so onto an infinite regress.
Philosophically but we must be realistic.

Yes. And? It leads to undecidability.

I am being as realistic as my epistemology allows me to.

There is no way to decide between philosophies - all philosophies are equally worthless towards solving decidability.
All philosophies are equally worthless towards helping you choose a philosophy.

In order to be able to choose any philosophy you need a value-system.

Said simply: you have to solve the is-ought problem BEFORE you choose your philosophy.

Thus my claim, God is impossible to be real within the most realistic and credible FSR/FSK, i.e. the scientific FSR/FSK.

It's not impossible. It's just unscientific to consider the possibility.

Because it's untestable.

I thought I mentioned earlier.

Kant has demonstrated,

• 1. 'God' is an idea, a transcendental idea which is ultimately an illusion of pure Understanding.
  
  2. Science deal with empirical evidences which are of sensibility.

To fit 1 into 2 is like fitting square pecs in round holes as such it is a non-starter for the idea of God to be dealt within the very specific scientific FSK, i.e. impossible in that sense.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0 ... science_12

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them.

Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.

For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Science do not deal with God as an entity itself,
but science can study why humans think and belief in a God.

[Skepdick]

I thought I mentioned earlier.

Kant has demonstrated,

• 1. 'God' is an idea, a transcendental idea which is ultimately an illusion of pure Understanding.

Yes. That's why it's an ideal. You know - like ZERO HARM. It sets the direction.

Because any level of "understanding" can be ultimately superseded by better understanding.
And better...
And better...
And better...

Towards pure understanding, but never ever getting there.

2. Science deal with empirical evidences which are of sensibility.[/list]

You are going to keep inventing adjectives till kingdom come.

You couldn't address "impossibility" so now it's 'sensibility'.

To fit 1 into 2 is like fitting square pecs in round holes as such it is a non-starter for the idea of God to be dealt within the very specific scientific FSK, i.e. impossible in that sense.

Oh, you mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkz7bnYfuOI

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought I mentioned earlier.

Kant has demonstrated,

• 1. 'God' is an idea, a transcendental idea which is ultimately an illusion of pure Understanding.

Yes. That's why it's an ideal. You know - like ZERO HARM. It sets the direction.

Because any level of "understanding" can be ultimately superseded by better understanding.
And better...
And better...
And better...

Towards pure understanding, but never ever getting there.

2. Science deal with empirical evidences which are of sensibility.[/list]

You are going to keep inventing adjectives till kingdom come.

You couldn't address "impossibility" so now it's 'sensibility'.

To fit 1 into 2 is like fitting square pecs in round holes as such it is a non-starter for the idea of God to be dealt within the very specific scientific FSK, i.e. impossible in that sense.

Oh, you mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkz7bnYfuOI

Point is you are not familiar with Kant's philosophy.

Re 'understanding' in Kantian terms refers to the part of the human brain that thinks where one can think of nonsense without any sense of sensibility and reality.

'Sensibility' is the part of the brain that comprised humanity's collective experiences or real things.

FYI, don't want to debate it.
Here where Kant asserted Plato left the world of sensibility into the la la land of impossibilities.

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses [sensibility], as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.

[Skepdick]

I thought I mentioned earlier.

Kant has demonstrated,

• 1. 'God' is an idea, a transcendental idea which is ultimately an illusion of pure Understanding.

Yes. That's why it's an ideal. You know - like ZERO HARM. It sets the direction.

Because any level of "understanding" can be ultimately superseded by better understanding.
And better...
And better...
And better...

Towards pure understanding, but never ever getting there.

2. Science deal with empirical evidences which are of sensibility.[/list]

You are going to keep inventing adjectives till kingdom come.

You couldn't address "impossibility" so now it's 'sensibility'.

To fit 1 into 2 is like fitting square pecs in round holes as such it is a non-starter for the idea of God to be dealt within the very specific scientific FSK, i.e. impossible in that sense.

Oh, you mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkz7bnYfuOI

Point is you are not familiar with Kant's philosophy.

Re 'understanding' in Kantian terms refers to the part of the human brain that thinks where one can think of nonsense without any sense of sensibility and reality.

'Sensibility' is the part of the brain that comprised humanity's collective experiences or real things.

FYI, don't want to debate it.
Here where Kant asserted Plato left the world of sensibility into the la la land of impossibilities.

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses [sensibility], as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.

None of that shit matters. It's philosophy - all philosophies are equally worthless. Kant, Plato, Aristotle, <every other philosopher>. ALL they have given us is philosophy. Philosophy is insufficient for decidability/assertability. You need a value system in order to appraise the available hypotheses/philosophies/options.

The assertion "I understand X" is a hypothesis about reality. And more specifically it's a hypothesis about me in the context of reality. Either I understand or I don't understand X. I need a value-system to determine which one is more likely than the other.

If I say "I understand the theory of bicycle-riding" and then I keep falling off my bicycle when I actually attempt to ride it some conclusions can be drawn about likelihoods.

Your "understanding of Kant" is untestable/unfalsifiable intellectual self-flagellation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is you are not familiar with Kant's philosophy.

Re 'understanding' in Kantian terms refers to the part of the human brain that thinks where one can think of nonsense without any sense of sensibility and reality.

'Sensibility' is the part of the brain that comprised humanity's collective experiences or real things.

FYI, don't want to debate it.
Here where Kant asserted Plato left the world of sensibility into the la la land of impossibilities.

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses [sensibility], as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.

None of that shit matters. It's philosophy - all philosophies are equally worthless. Kant, Plato, Aristotle, <every other philosopher>. ALL they have given us is philosophy. Philosophy is insufficient for decidability/assertability. You need a value system in order to appraise the available hypotheses/philosophies/options.

The assertion "I understand X" is a hypothesis about reality. And more specifically it's a hypothesis about me in the context of reality. Either I understand or I don't understand X. I need a value-system to determine which one is more likely than the other.

If I say "I understand the theory of bicycle-riding" and then I keep falling off my bicycle when I actually attempt to ride it some conclusions can be drawn about likelihoods.

Your "understanding of Kant" is untestable/unfalsifiable intellectual self-flagellation.

Didn't you notice I mentioned 'parts of the brain' re Kant's 'sensibility' and 'understanding'.
As such whatever I agree with Kant [or any other philosophers] must be verifiable and justifiable within the FSK of the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, genetics, psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

• Through nineteenth-century intermediaries, the model of the mind developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has had an enormous influence on contemporary cognitive research.
  
  Indeed, Kant could be viewed as the intellectual godfather of cognitive science.
  
  In general structure, Kant's model of the mind shaped nineteenth-century empirical psychology (Herbart, Helmholtz and Wundt all viewed themselves as Kantians) and, after a hiatus during which behaviourism reigned supreme (roughly 1910 to 1965), became influential again toward the end of the twentieth century, especially in cognitive science.
  
  https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Kantianism#:~

The point is one has nothing to lose and all to gain by reviewing the philosophies of the ancient masters than like you simply point blank is indifferent to them, thus missing the opportunity gain.

[Skepdick]

Didn't you notice I mentioned 'parts of the brain' re Kant's 'sensibility' and 'understanding'.
As such what I agree with Kant must be verifiable and justifiable within the FSK of the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, genetics, psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

You still don't get it.

"I am sensible about X" is a hypothesis. What would falsify it?
"I understand X" is a hypothesis. What would falsify it?

In what framework do you falsify the attributes you ascribe to yourself?

The point is one has nothing to lose and all to gain by reviewing the philosophies of the ancient masters than like you simply point blank is indifferent to them, thus missing the opportunity gain.

And once you have reviewed ALL philosophies, in what framework do you decide/appraise which philosophy is "best" ?

You need a value system in order to assert Philosophy/Theory/FSK A is better than Philosophy/Theory/FSK B.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Didn't you notice I mentioned 'parts of the brain' re Kant's 'sensibility' and 'understanding'.
As such what I agree with Kant must be verifiable and justifiable within the FSK of the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, genetics, psychology, evolutionary psychology, etc.

You still don't get it.

"I am sensible about X" is a hypothesis. What would falsify it?
"I understand X" is a hypothesis. What would falsify it?

In what framework do you falsify the attributes you ascribe to yourself?

The point is one has nothing to lose and all to gain by reviewing the philosophies of the ancient masters than like you simply point blank is indifferent to them, thus missing the opportunity gain.

And once you have reviewed ALL philosophies, in what framework do you decide/appraise which philosophy is "best" ?

You need a value system in order to assert Philosophy/Theory/FSK A is better than Philosophy/Theory/FSK B.

We have gone through the above before, i.e. having trust on the credibility of specific FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

From the philosophy perspective, I would rely on the Critical Philosophy FSK to reinforce my confidence level on the claims of the respective FSK.

[Terrapin Station]

Why try to invent the wheel?? I believe it is most efficient to rely on the arguments of notable genius philosophers but first one must convinced the arguments are valid.
In addition one can prop up those arguments one think is not sufficient for one's purpose.

It's not trying to reinvent the wheel. Rather, in my view, the vast majority of philosophers have made ridiculous claims much of the time, often enough via ridiculous argumentation--and too often via rather idiotic and/or incoherent argumentation and frequently very poor writing. As I said, even where I'm a big fan of someone--Russell is easily #1 for me, I'd say he had things pretty screwed up at least 50% of the time. There are plenty of philosophers, especially in the continental tradition, where I have serious issues with literally every single sentence they uttered. A good example is Heidegger.

Given that that's my opinion, why would I be deferring to someone else or suggesting allegiance to anyone?

It's important to remember the "two laws of philosophy:"

(1) For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.
(2) They're both wrong.

Obviously that's a joke, but in a way not really.

The point here is,
Is Reality [other than mental things] independent or linked with human-minds.

I thought I answered this already, but as a demonstration of what to do when one thinks this in the context of a need for clarification, I'll answer again:

Most of it is independent of minds (when I talk of minds, by the way, I don't limit it to humans). But some things are obviously related to minds in some way despite being objective. For example, computers wouldn't exist if we didn't have the ideas required for them. So they're "mind-dependent" in the sense that minds were necessary for them to exist--minds were a precondition for them, but once we create them, they're mind-independent. If every creature with a mind suddenly popped out of existence this very moment, computers would still exist obviously.

From your views above, by definition, you [essentially and fundamentally] belong to the Philosophical Realism school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Yes. at least a handful of times now I've explicitly told you that I'm a realist.

My view is Philosophical Realism is not realistic in the most ultimate sense of reality.

Sure. Whatever that means. You'd have to define the various ways you're using the term "real" there. (The first instance, a la "Philosophical Realism" should be referring to the view that there are mind-independent things, but your other two instances in the sentence above can't be using the term in the same way.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why try to invent the wheel?? I believe it is most efficient to rely on the arguments of notable genius philosophers but first one must convinced the arguments are valid.
In addition one can prop up those arguments one think is not sufficient for one's purpose.

It's not trying to reinvent the wheel. Rather, in my view, the vast majority of philosophers have made ridiculous claims much of the time, often enough via ridiculous argumentation--and too often via rather idiotic and/or incoherent argumentation and frequently very poor writing. As I said, even where I'm a big fan of someone--Russell is easily #1 for me, I'd say he had things pretty screwed up at least 50% of the time. There are plenty of philosophers, especially in the continental tradition, where I have serious issues with literally every single sentence they uttered. A good example is Heidegger.

Given that that's my opinion, why would I be deferring to someone else or suggesting allegiance to anyone?

It's important to remember the "two laws of philosophy:"

(1) For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.
(2) They're both wrong.

Obviously that's a joke, but in a way not really.

I am a very BIG fan of Kant, but I don't agree with every of his philosophical views. Kant on the fringe is a deist of a kind, and I am not.

But what is critical here is all philosophers has a specific core philosophical stance, i.e. where he is either,

• 1. Philosophical Realist [PR] or
  2. Philosophical Anti-realist [PaR]

where all his other main philosophical views are hinged upon.
Note my emphasis on 'main' and not their secondary views.

Philosophical Realism in this case refer to absolute mind-independence.

What we have of reality is ALL-there-is and this ALL-there-is is reducible to it ultimate units for both PRs and PaRs.
The difference is the PRs believe in the substance theory as in Aristotle's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
as existing by itself, i.e. a thing-in-itself independent of all human conditions.

Those who are PaRs believe otherwise, i.e. the ultimate unit of reality is linked with human minds.

The point here is,
Is Reality [other than mental things] independent or linked with human-minds.

I thought I answered this already, but as a demonstration of what to do when one thinks this in the context of a need for clarification, I'll answer again:

Most of it is independent of minds (when I talk of minds, by the way, I don't limit it to humans).

But some things are obviously related to minds in some way despite being objective. For example, computers wouldn't exist if we didn't have the ideas required for them. So they're "mind-dependent" in the sense that minds were necessary for them to exist--minds were a precondition for them, but once we create them, they're mind-independent.

If every creature with a mind suddenly popped out of existence this very moment, computers would still exist obviously.

It is good you clarify further.

When you stated, re minds you don't limit to humans, do you mean minds of other animals, plants?
If yes, such a point this is unnecessary.
If you believe there are other minds other than humans, other animals, plants and organism, you are entering la la land and the supernatural. Is this the case with you?

Computers are created by minds.
In the conventional sense, yes, the completed computer is physically independent of human minds and the human self. So the Philosophical Realists is confined to the conventional.
But for the philosophical anti-realist [Kantian], the computer is ultimately not independent of the human minds since logical the human minds are the preconditions of its reality.

• 1. If ALL humans are extinct, would the 'computer' still exists?
  
  2. It is humans collectively who sustain the reality and terms of what is a computer.
  
  3. If ALL humans are extinct, then there are no humans to sustain 2, therefore there would be no computer-as-it-is-humanly-is.
  
  4. According to the Kantian PaRs, there is no such thing as a computer-in-itself, the reality is there is only a computer-by-humans-selves.
  Thus if no humans at all, there is no computers-by-humans-selves.

The above is very fundamental and contentious between PRs and PaRs.
If you insist you are right, prove to me a computer-in-itself or a thing-in-itself exists by itself.

From your views above, by definition, you [essentially and fundamentally] belong to the Philosophical Realism school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Yes. at least a handful of times now I've explicitly told you that I'm a realist.

But you were very hesitant with the term 'philosophical realist'.

My view is Philosophical Realism is not realistic in the most ultimate sense of reality.

Sure. Whatever that means. You'd have to define the various ways you're using the term "real" there. (The first instance, a la "Philosophical Realism" should be referring to the view that there are mind-independent things, but your other two instances in the sentence above can't be using the term in the same way.)

Note my explanations above.

What is really "real" to the Kantian PaRs is that of Empirical Realism, i.e. WYSIWYG as real,
'What You See [observed] Is What You Get' as real and upon verifying and justifying empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

What is really 'real' to the philosophical realist is merely an assumption of an existing thing-in-itself which is ultimately an illusion, thus begging the question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not trying to reinvent the wheel.
Rather, in my view, the vast majority of philosophers have made ridiculous claims much of the time, often enough via ridiculous argumentation--and too often via rather idiotic and/or incoherent argumentation and frequently very poor writing.
As I said, even where I'm a big fan of someone--Russell is easily #1 for me, I'd say he had things pretty screwed up at least 50% of the time. There are plenty of philosophers, especially in the continental tradition, where I have serious issues with literally every single sentence they uttered. A good example is Heidegger.

I am a very BIG fan of Kant, but eclectically I read and researched all notable philosophers [Western, Eastern and everywhere] and picked up whatever that meet the criteria of my critical philosophical analysis.

Thus I read and agree with a lot from the Anglo-American philosopher [more to analysis as an end] and also those of the continental philosophers where they don't clash and oppose in principles with my philosophical anti-realist views.

As your point re Heidegger, you are only relying on hearsays from other bias philosophers.
I spent 6 months full time on Heidegger and while I don't agree with his approach to his views on Being, Heidegger had a lot to offer on various elements of reality and human nature to supplement one's philosophical views on what is really real.

On the whole I prefer the continental philosophers because of their focus on human nature and not leveraging on some illusory thing-in-itself. Their philosophies thus will contribute the progress of the individual human being and humanity.

Philosophical realists are driven by instincts, the conventional and natural psychology to search outward and externally [reality independent of mind] but do not have the ability to turn inward to understand themselves on the imperative 'Know Thyself'.

[Skepdick]

We have gone through the above before, i.e. having trust on the credibility of specific FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Trust and credibility are artefacts of a value system. I trust X is the same as saying I believe X on faith.

Aaaaand... you've solved nothing.

Given all available FSKs which how do you choose to place your trust/confidence in one?

From the philosophy perspective, I would rely on the Critical Philosophy FSK to reinforce my confidence level on the claims of the respective FSK.

So... you continue to miss the point.

What would undermine your trust/confidence in an FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We have gone through the above before, i.e. having trust on the credibility of specific FSK.
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Trust and credibility are artefacts of a value system. I trust X is the same as saying I believe X on faith.

Aaaaand... you've solved nothing.

Given all available FSKs which how do you choose to place your trust/confidence in one?

From the philosophy perspective, I would rely on the Critical Philosophy FSK to reinforce my confidence level on the claims of the respective FSK.

So... you continue to miss the point.

What would undermine your trust/confidence in an FSK?

Are you declaring you will not believe and accept whatever scientific facts/truths/knowledge from the scientific FSK?

If you are living in a low lying area near the coast and there is a warning of a VERY big tsunami [based on scientific research] on the way, you will not run to high grounds because you do not have any trust in scientific based inferences from scientific facts?