What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. Among other major failings it it's excessively formalised which is exactly what I warn against trying to do. An example being ... You make up nonsensical numbers to represent unquantifiable things like "crediblity" and then you imagine you have measured something. That is a formula for the manufacture of pure bullshit.

You also routinely expect to be able to list everything there is in some category. Like you think you can make a list of all the moral things there are and then make up the afore mentioned numbers to fake a measurement of their badnesses and then .... well I don't even know what rubbish happens after that. Another ridiculous formalised listing game you recommend is to create a giant list of all the different KFC things there could possibly be in order to sort them into some sort of "credibility" chart. Not only is that hyper-formalised, but it is absolutely totally insane and would be a pointless waste of effort even if you could hope to complete such an unending task.

So no, all that hyper-formalised self indulgence leaves me entirely cold. Your KFC theory is madness.

Your insistence upon 'contexts' leads to FSRC.

Like you invented context. Get over yourself you maniac.

How else can you establish credibility and objectivity to the conclusions in relation to some context?

Don't. You don't need to do any such thing, or least not scientifically. So don't make up a lunatic bullshit pseudo-scientific sorting game to sort things that don't need to be, and can't actually be, formally sorted.

My point is there is a need for some sort of Framework and System to establish [explicitly or implicitly] the credibility and objectivity within a specified context.

Show me example[s] where "You don't need to do any such thing"?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your insistence upon 'contexts' leads to FSRC.

Like you invented context. Get over yourself you maniac.

How else can you establish credibility and objectivity to the conclusions in relation to some context?

Don't. You don't need to do any such thing, or least not scientifically. So don't make up a lunatic bullshit pseudo-scientific sorting game to sort things that don't need to be, and can't actually be, formally sorted.

My point is there is a need for some sort of Framework and System to establish [explicitly or implicitly] the credibility and objectivity within a specified context.

Show me example[s] where "You don't need to do any such thing"?

You keep trying to make comparisons between everything else and Physics. There is no need. We don't need a hierarchy for these things at all.

We don't need a league table that places the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropolgy. There is no requirement for any of this rubbish.

The compulsion to sort things into such hiearchies and lists is a psychological drive that belongs to you, not to us. It isn't important in the world, only in your head.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Like you invented context. Get over yourself you maniac.


Don't. You don't need to do any such thing, or least not scientifically. So don't make up a lunatic bullshit pseudo-scientific sorting game to sort things that don't need to be, and can't actually be, formally sorted.

My point is there is a need for some sort of Framework and System to establish [explicitly or implicitly] the credibility and objectivity within a specified context.

Show me example[s] where "You don't need to do any such thing"?

You keep trying to make comparisons between everything else and Physics. There is no need. We don't need a hierarchy for these things at all.

We don't need a league table that places the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropolgy. There is no requirement for any of this rubbish.

The compulsion to sort things into such hiearchies and lists is a psychological drive that belongs to you, not to us. It isn't important in the world, only in your head.

"the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropology"
your use of the above contrast is merely insulting your own intelligence and wisdom.
In Anthropology we can compare those FSRC that has methods that is likely to be bias against those that are more rigorous and less bias.

I believe it is very rational and wise to have hierarchy of reality and knowledge of reality where necessary.
It is very common for humans to rank things for some purposes. This is likely to be an evolutionary adaption to rank the degrees of danger of threats, which male is more alpha, which female is more fertile, etc.

For example in modern times,
-in the case of potency of medicines which is critical to ensure effectiveness in accordance to the degree of the disease
-ranking of student abilities,
- pareto analysis of various criticalness
- etc. etc. etc.

Surely there is a need to rank the credibility of knowledge claims related to the reality and truth of astrology, theology, pseudo-sciences, folk-psychology, myths, claims; this is best done against the generally accepted scientific FSRC as the gold standard.

[Peter Holmes]

The practice and discourse of astronomy is a credible and reliable source of knowledge for the simple reason that it tries to describe features of reality that actually exist.

Astrology is not less credible and reliable than astronomy; it has no credibility and reliability whatsoever, because what it claims to describe - astral influence on human character and terrestrial events - doesn't actually exist. And that's why theology, for example, is also not a less credible source of knowledge than natural science.

So the credibility and reliability of a discipline depends on something the existence of which VA denies: a reality outside or independent from the practices and discourses that produce human knowledge. This is the spectral noumenon that Kant simultaneously invoked and denied, leaving the ghastly legacy of a non-existent dichotomy - noumena/phenomena - that continues to rot our thinking.

[FlashDangerpants]

My point is there is a need for some sort of Framework and System to establish [explicitly or implicitly] the credibility and objectivity within a specified context.

Show me example[s] where "You don't need to do any such thing"?

You keep trying to make comparisons between everything else and Physics. There is no need. We don't need a hierarchy for these things at all.

We don't need a league table that places the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropolgy. There is no requirement for any of this rubbish.

The compulsion to sort things into such hiearchies and lists is a psychological drive that belongs to you, not to us. It isn't important in the world, only in your head.

"the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropology"
your use of the above contrast is merely insulting your own intelligence and wisdom.
In Anthropology we can compare those FSRC that has methods that is likely to be bias against those that are more rigorous and less bias.

I believe it is very rational and wise to have hierarchy of reality and knowledge of reality where necessary.
It is very common for humans to rank things for some purposes. This is likely to be an evolutionary adaption to rank the degrees of danger of threats, which male is more alpha, which female is more fertile, etc.

For example in modern times,
-in the case of potency of medicines which is critical to ensure effectiveness in accordance to the degree of the disease
-ranking of student abilities,
- pareto analysis of various criticalness
- etc. etc. etc.

If it's an evolutionary adaptation, why are you the only person who wants to do this thing in the world? Have you ever met anyone who wants to list all the KFCs there are and start givng them made up numbers? Have you met anyone who even wants to see the list?

I asked what the point is in having a league table comparing unrelated unimportant things and you just went into a rant about how possible it is. That is untrue, there is no basis for measurement, only dead reckoning. But there still is no point to it.

You have an obsession with sorting games. Nobody else cares. That you would even think to write something like "pareto analysis of various criticalness" as if any of those things mattered at all shows that you are quite carried away with this complete foolishness.

Surely there is a need to rank the credibility of knowledge claims related to the reality and truth of astrology, theology, pseudo-sciences, folk-psychology, myths, claims; this is best done against the generally accepted scientific FSRC as the gold standard.

No there really isn't any such need. I don't need to kow which is the fifth best pseudo-science, I just need to know how to recognise what is a pseudo-science and then I know not to trust it much. The order of trustworthiness that you and your (imaginary) friends apply to whatever authoritative list of all the 733 known pseudo-sciences that are not relevant to me ever is not going to be important to me ever.

Your dogmatic obsession with comparing things to science doesn't make the project look more authoritative in the way that you hope, rather it makes it look like the purpose is to create pseduo-sciences bcause 733 of them isn't enough for you. The way you constantly pretend your morality-proper is a sort of a science because of of all the sciency sounding methods it uses and the almost science of the credibility score you award that is almost the number for a science confirms that suspicion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You keep trying to make comparisons between everything else and Physics. There is no need. We don't need a hierarchy for these things at all.

We don't need a league table that places the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropolgy. There is no requirement for any of this rubbish.

The compulsion to sort things into such hiearchies and lists is a psychological drive that belongs to you, not to us. It isn't important in the world, only in your head.

"the Marxist Historiography above the Five Second Rule but below Anthropology"
your use of the above contrast is merely insulting your own intelligence and wisdom.
In Anthropology we can compare those FSRC that has methods that is likely to be bias against those that are more rigorous and less bias.

I believe it is very rational and wise to have hierarchy of reality and knowledge of reality where necessary.
It is very common for humans to rank things for some purposes. This is likely to be an evolutionary adaption to rank the degrees of danger of threats, which male is more alpha, which female is more fertile, etc.

For example in modern times,
-in the case of potency of medicines which is critical to ensure effectiveness in accordance to the degree of the disease
-ranking of student abilities,
- pareto analysis of various criticalness
- etc. etc. etc.

If it's an evolutionary adaptation, why are you the only person who wants to do this thing in the world? Have you ever met anyone who wants to list all the KFCs there are and start givng them made up numbers? Have you met anyone who even wants to see the list?

Ranking in terms of some sort criteria [explicitly and implicitly] is an evolution adaptation which is very evident as I had explained above with examples.
The point is every human do some sort of ranking but the ranking of FSRCs is merely one sort of ranking.

It is the principles in terms of ranking FSRCs that is important.
I did not insist we rank everything on sight, but only where it is relevant for some purposes.
It is also very evident non-theists had been contrasting the scientific FSRC with the theological FSRC in terms of reality. Surely you cannot deny this?

I asked what the point is in having a league table comparing unrelated unimportant things and you just went into a rant about how possible it is. That is untrue, there is no basis for measurement, only dead reckoning. But there still is no point to it.

Somehow your knowledge and competence is limited.

One of my forte is problem-solving techniques. The critical basis for effective problem solving and progress is quantification and measurements.
As such, the basic requirement is to try to quantify all known variables subject to its limitations.
Note how computers and now AI work are based on quantification, i.e. reducing everything to to 0 or 1.

You have an obsession with sorting games. Nobody else cares. That you would even think to write something like "pareto analysis of various criticalness" as if any of those things mattered at all shows that you are quite carried away with this complete foolishness.

WHO ARE YOU to claim "Nobody else cares". This is just ignorance and silliness and you are totally ignorant of effective problems solving techniques. No wonder all your answers to the questions raised here are so narrow minded and not refined.

Surely there is a need to rank the credibility of knowledge claims related to the reality and truth of astrology, theology, pseudo-sciences, folk-psychology, myths, claims; this is best done against the generally accepted scientific FSRC as the gold standard.

No there really isn't any such need. I don't need to know which is the fifth best pseudo-science, I just need to know how to recognise what is a pseudo-science and then I know not to trust it much. The order of trustworthiness that you and your (imaginary) friends apply to whatever authoritative list of all the 733 known pseudo-sciences that are not relevant to me ever is not going to be important to me ever.

Your dogmatic obsession with comparing things to science doesn't make the project look more authoritative in the way that you hope, rather it makes it look like the purpose is to create pseduo-sciences bcause 733 of them isn't enough for you. The way you constantly pretend your morality-proper is a sort of a science because of of all the sciency sounding methods it uses and the almost science of the credibility score you award that is almost the number for a science confirms that suspicion.

Your exaggeration of my point is merely insulting your own intelligence.
Where have I ever claim this?
"rather it makes it look like the purpose is to create pseduo-sciences bcause 733 of them isn't enough for you."

What I have done is to introduce the principles of ranking FSCRs.
One need to apply one intelligence and wisdom to be effective and optimal in ranking only the necessary in terms of cost, effort and time effectiveness.

[FlashDangerpants]

You have an obsession with sorting games. Nobody else cares. That you would even think to write something like "pareto analysis of various criticalness" as if any of those things mattered at all shows that you are quite carried away with this complete foolishness.

WHO ARE YOU to claim "Nobody else cares". This is just ignorance and silliness and you are totally ignorant of effective problems solving techniques. No wonder all your answers to the questions raised here are so narrow minded and not refined.

Do you have empirical evidence I am wrong? If not, then that is empirical evidence I am right.

There is nobody else joining in this sorting game that you play. And it doesn't need to be played. So maybe stop playing it.

Surely there is a need to rank the credibility of knowledge claims related to the reality and truth of astrology, theology, pseudo-sciences, folk-psychology, myths, claims; this is best done against the generally accepted scientific FSRC as the gold standard.

No there really isn't any such need. I don't need to know which is the fifth best pseudo-science, I just need to know how to recognise what is a pseudo-science and then I know not to trust it much. The order of trustworthiness that you and your (imaginary) friends apply to whatever authoritative list of all the 733 known pseudo-sciences that are not relevant to me ever is not going to be important to me ever.

Your dogmatic obsession with comparing things to science doesn't make the project look more authoritative in the way that you hope, rather it makes it look like the purpose is to create pseduo-sciences bcause 733 of them isn't enough for you. The way you constantly pretend your morality-proper is a sort of a science because of of all the sciency sounding methods it uses and the almost science of the credibility score you award that is almost the number for a science confirms that suspicion.

Your exaggeration of my point is merely insulting your own intelligence.
Where have I ever claim this?
"rather it makes it look like the purpose is to create pseduo-sciences bcause 733 of them isn't enough for you."

What I have done is to introduce the principles of ranking FSCRs.
One need to apply one intelligence and wisdom to be effective and optimal in ranking only the necessary in terms of cost, effort and time effectiveness.

Stay on topic. There is no need to compare pointless unrelated methodologies, nor to assemble a list of them, nor to order that list by a flase metric you concoct on the fly out of made up numbers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have an obsession with sorting games. Nobody else cares. That you would even think to write something like "pareto analysis of various criticalness" as if any of those things mattered at all shows that you are quite carried away with this complete foolishness.

WHO ARE YOU to claim "Nobody else cares". This is just ignorance and silliness and you are totally ignorant of effective problems solving techniques. No wonder all your answers to the questions raised here are so narrow minded and not refined.

Do you have empirical evidence I am wrong? If not, then that is empirical evidence I am right.

There is nobody else joining in this sorting game that you play. And it doesn't need to be played. So maybe stop playing it.

It is true nobody [that I know of] here who are into ranking seriously. But that you rely your empirical evidence within this silo is too narrow & shallow.
Have you done a reasonable survey outside this silo?
Are you familiar with Pew Research and elsewhere where ranking is common?
Have you every taken a course in Statistics and Decision-Making?

Here's AI's [wR] on the matter;

Yes, ranking based on a set of criteria with relevant weightages is generally considered a more sophisticated and accurate analysis of data for several reasons:

Structured Approach: It forces a systematic evaluation of alternatives, ensuring all relevant factors are considered.
Prioritization: Assigning weights allows you to prioritize the most important criteria in your decision-making process.
Transparency: The process is transparent, making it easier to understand the rationale behind the final ranking and allowing for easier communication or justification of the chosen option.
Flexibility: The approach can be adapted to different situations by adjusting the criteria and their weights.

However, it's important to consider some limitations:

Subjectivity: Weighting criteria can be subjective, and the final outcome depends on the chosen weights.
Data Quality: The accuracy of the ranking relies on the quality of the data used to score the alternatives on each criterion.
Complexity: With a large number of criteria, the process can become complex and require careful consideration to avoid bias.

Here's a comparison to a simpler analysis:

Simple Average: If you simply averaged scores across all criteria, you might miss the importance of some factors.
Focus on Single Factor: Focusing on just one or two key factors might overlook valuable aspects of the alternatives.

Overall, ranking with weighted criteria provides a more nuanced and potentially more accurate analysis by considering multiple factors and their relative importance. It's a valuable tool for data presentation and decision-making, but be mindful of potential biases and ensure data quality and transparency in the weighting process.

[FlashDangerpants]

WHO ARE YOU to claim "Nobody else cares". This is just ignorance and silliness and you are totally ignorant of effective problems solving techniques. No wonder all your answers to the questions raised here are so narrow minded and not refined.

Do you have empirical evidence I am wrong? If not, then that is empirical evidence I am right.

There is nobody else joining in this sorting game that you play. And it doesn't need to be played. So maybe stop playing it.

It is true nobody [that I know of] here who are into ranking seriously.

The listing sorting and ranking games you play are pointless. The numbers you make up out of thin air to justify them are meaningless and measure nothing. The whole thing only matters to you.

[Skepdick]

The listing sorting and ranking games you play are pointless. The numbers you make up out of thin air to justify them are meaningless and measure nothing. The whole thing only matters to you.

That's not how meaning works... The numbers assigned "out of thin air" are immaterial if the ranking holds across individuals.
It's not the actual number that matters - it's the relationship to everything else.

If I assign 5 to X and 10 to Y; and you assign 20 to X and 40 to Y it's still true that we both rank Y > X.
And it may even be true that both of us value Y twice as much as we value X.

This denotational game you are playing is a dead end.

[Peter Holmes]

A scores the moral wrongness of forced birth as 10/10, and the moral wrongness of abortion as 0/10.

B scores the moral wrongness of forced birth as 7/10, and the moral wrongness of abortion as 5/10.

So A and B both score the moral wrongness of forced birth higher than the moral wrongness of abortion.

Therefore, for A+B, it's a fact that forced birth is morally wronger than abortion. Data don't lie.

[Skepdick]

A scores the moral wrongness of forced birth as 10/10, and the moral wrongness of abortion as 0/10.

B scores the moral wrongness of forced birth as 7/10, and the moral wrongness of abortion as 5/10.

So A and B both score the moral wrongness of forced birth higher than the moral wrongness of abortion.

Therefore, for A+B, it's a fact that forced birth is morally wronger than abortion. Data don't lie.

As if wasn't obvious by now that Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes has a cognitive deficit...

He keeps misinterpreting/misrepresenting everything. What chance does he stand to even grasp moral issues?

The idiot scores X as 10/10 but then he scores the inverse of X as 0/10.
He then does it again by scoring X as 7/10 and then he scores the inverse as 5/10.

If only there was a way to install intelligence into brains

[Peter Holmes]

Surely only an idiot would call abortion the 'inverse' of forced birth - whatever that means.

Surely only an idiot would mistake data, which is linguistic, for the reality outside language.

And surely only an idiot would think moral rightness/wrongness can be scalar quantified. Is moral rightness at 1 if moral wrongness is at 0? And what sort of data would be involved?

[Skepdick]

Surely only an idiot would call abortion the 'inverse' of forced birth - whatever that means.

Surely only an idiot would mistake data, which is linguistic, for the reality outside language.

And surely only an idiot would think moral rightness/wrongness can be scalar quantified. Is moral rightness at 1 if moral wrongness is at 0? And what sort of data would be involved?

Surely only an idiot with a cognitive dysfunction would think that abortion (forced termination) and forced birth aren't inverse choices.

inverse
/ˈɪnvəːs,ɪnˈvəːs/
adjective
opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or effect.

Surely only an idiot with a cognitive dysfunction would think that sense-data is something linguistic.

Surely only an idiot with a cognitive dysfunction would think that right and wrong are scalars and not vectors.

No surprise there. It's Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes thinking such things.

[Peter Holmes]

Vector: 'a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.'

Surely only a moron would think that moral rightness and wrongness are quantities having direction as well as magnitude, etc.

Surely only a moron would think the following is a sound argument for moral objectivity.

P1 If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong.
P2 Murder is wrong.
C Therefore, murder is wrong.

Faced with a thinker of this intellectual calibre, it's game over.