FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:14 pm
First we have to list down all human knowledge on hand.
Then we categorize them in to various relevant categories.
From there we can rank their credibility, trustworthiness, utility via certain criteria.
Thats' an impossible task, followed by a meaningless one, followed by an absurd one.
You are incompetent, ineffective, lazy and ignorant.
It is not difficult to list down whatever fields of knowledge known with as many as possible, then produce a
taxonomy out of it and continue to add whatever is found later.
To insist a taxonomy of knowledge[s] is meaningless is dumb.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:22 am
Note for example when one is faced with challenges from say theology, pseudo-sciences, various sciences on certain truth say, validating how things originate, surely there are degrees of truths and objectivity [as defined] to them thus the question of their reliability, credibility, trustworthy, and utility.
So the question is how are we to rank them?
All you have to do is look at what question is being answered, then refer to the best method for answering that sort of question. Only a fool would look at a ranking table for different knowledges, and only a moron would include homeopathy in any such table.
If somebody says "trust me I'm a physicist" before giving you medical advice contrary to that of your accountant, you shouldn't refer to a chart that rates physicists versus accountants, you should go to your doctor.
Again you are the FOOL and a moron in limiting your range of knowledge and not exploring possibilities for positives in novel ideas.
Once we have a taxonomy of knowledge, we can easily understand where each knowledge are relative to the others.
In addition we can compare the degrees of objectivity, truth, credibility, trustworthiness, utilities within the same group and other groups.
No normal Physicist nor professional will declare their specialty and proceed to make claims of knowledge other than their own. It only happen if they have gone mad which in that case they cannot [by default] represent the said profession.
Whenever there are issues of knowledge claims, each claimant may not reveal their profession nor their basis of their claims of truth. Where they reveal their profession, it is necessary to understand the credibility of their claims.
Example, in a murder or other court cases, it would be more effective for every jury to have knowledge of 'a taxonomy of knowledge' with their values if either the prosecutor or defense bring in a homeopathy to support their arguments in contrast to say a reputable scientist of the relevant field before they come up with their final judgment.
In another example, theists will bring in all sorts of claims [pseudo-sciences, fictions, speculations, illusory ideas, blind faith, emotional appeal, fallacious claims, etc. etc. thus it would be effective for a non-theist to have a taxonomy of knowledge with the respective values to counter the theists' argument with an objective and rational stance.
The same above process of reference to a taxonomy of knowledge with the respective values applies whenever there are disputes in the claims of truths of reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:22 am
Point is in practice scientific knowledge is
so prevalent is all aspects of life and continue to be used [with reservations where necessary] in contrast to other knowledge, implied that scientific knowledge has a higher degree of objectivity, thus credibility and trustworthiness over others.
That's a dreadful inference.
Again you are very ignorant in the above.
For any average person in our modern age, it is very intuitive for them to infer [intuitively] the dominance of scientific knowledge is the various aspect of human life especially in technology, medicines, etc.
I have read a lot of papers [many reputable ones] where the authors acknowledge the same inference that scientific knowledge is dominant.
It is only the theists who exude high confidence the knowledge from their God is most truthful over all other human-based knowledge.
There are also may polls and research findings which indicate scientific knowledge is dominant [in terms of objectivity and credibility] over other types of knowledge.
If we were to do a rigorous exercise on that point, I am very optimistic it will be very conclusive to affirm scientific knowledge [despite so many negatives and weakness] [along with mathematics] is the most credible and trustworthy over all other knowledge.
Btw, I have done a lot of reading and research on the above before I make the above claims.
You [dumb, moronic, a fool] OTOH is making arrogant statements based ignorance without detailed research on the subject.