Philosophy Now Forum

Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages.
There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

I have done the ratings on the degree of objectivity [FSK-ed] for the following

1. Scientific [the Standard] = 90.0
2. Theological = 0.00
3. History =45.50
4. My morality-proper FSKs =74.75

If the scientific FSK is the most reliable and objective and taken as the Standard, then the relative degrees of objectivity to the standard are as follows;

• 1. Scientific [the Standard] = 100%
  2. My morality-proper FSKs =83.05% -[{74.75/90}*100]
  3. History =50.55%
  4. Theological = 0.00%

The principle is, as long as it qualifies as a FSK, there is FSK-ed objectivity.

From the above, with the scientific FSK as the standard at 100%, the theological FSK's degrees of credibility and objectivity is 0%.

My proposed morality-proper FSK is rated at 83.05 relative to the standard because, whilst NOT dealing with direct empirical evidence, its major input is are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

The figures below are subject to deliberation and will change but I do not expect the changes to vary significantly.

___________________________________
The Detail Ratings are as follows;

Scientific FSK
Criteria............................W.......Score ....Point
Empirical Evidence:..............0.85....90.......76.50
Predictive Power:.................0.04...90.........3.60
Testability and Falsifiability:....0.04...90........3.60
Reproducibility:...................0.05...90........4.50
Consistency w Existing
Knowledge:........................0.01...90.........0.90
Logical Coherence:...............0.01...90.........0.90
Total: ..............................1.00.............90.00

Because it is tedious I have not align the below like the above.
Theology FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 0 0.00
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 0 0.00
Total 1.00 0.00


History FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 50 42.50
Predictive Power: 0.04 0 0.00
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 50 2.50
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 0 0.00
Logical Coherence: 0.01 50 0.50
Total 1.00 45.50


Morality Proper FSK
Criteria W Score Point
Empirical Evidence: 0.85 85 72.25
Predictive Power: 0.04 10 0.40
Testability and Falsifiability: 0.04 0 0.00
Reproducibility: 0.05 0 0.00
Consistency w Existing Knowledge: 0.01 90 0.90
Logical Coherence: 0.01 90 0.90
Total 1.00 74.45
______________________

The above are not carved in stones.

Discuss?? Views??

ps. can anyone show how can I post tables in this forum?

Notes: KIV

Notes: KIV

I mean LOL, those numbers are funny and we will come back to this thread I can assure you .....

But you have changed the rules to give yourself a better score.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 4:17 am

Your explanation for the credibility you assign to science is just based on the number of people that think science is good at explaining stuff. The number of people that do the trusting, nothing to do with the quality of information to be trusted.

It is not about the number of people, if so, it would be an ad populum fallacy.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

There are no supporters for your morality-proper-FSK-thing. You don't qualify for a score.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:28 am Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages. There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

As Thomas Kuhn recognised, it doesn't even work for short lists applied to the field you think is the most reliable:

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:

1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.

2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.

3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.

4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)

5. It should make predictions that come true.

However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:28 am Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages. There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

As Thomas Kuhn recognised, it doesn't even work for short lists applied to the field you think is the most reliable:

And there I assume he is talking about competing versions of the answer to the same question?

I would imagine that if the question is "how many wives did Henry VIII have?" he would think it odd to need to look up whether zoology or electro-chemistry are the more credible knowledge magesteria in comparison to history before selecting which end of the library to walk to.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:28 am Discuss?? Views??

ps. can anyone show how can I post tables in this forum?

I think you'd have to import an image. An excel doc or something.

OK, look, great. You took the step to make your process of arriving at numbers more transparent. Great. I still think there are problems, but I appreciate the effort.

The first issue I'd want to focus on is

Scientific FSK
Criteria............................W.......Score ....Point
Empirical Evidence:..............0.85....90.......76.50
Predictive Power:.................0.04...90.........3.60
Testability and Falsifiability:....0.04...90........3.60
Reproducibility:...................0.05...90........4.50
Consistency w Existing
Knowledge:........................0.01...90.........0.90
Logical Coherence:...............0.01...90.........0.90
Total: ..............................1.00.............90.00

Questions:
1) on what grounds did you weight the various criteria?
2) is this an FSK? IOW you have a methodology for measuring the various fields of inquiry. What is this FSK? How objective is it?
3) You've weighted empirical evidence at 90? How did you arrive at this figure?
4) You rate empirical evidence very high and predictive power, testability and reproducibility very low. Of course this is how you evaluate, but no scientist would rate things like this, for example. Anecdotal evidence can be very high in support of an FSK - the alien abduction scenario, or folk psychology theories - but have very low scores, many would think, on those other three categories. So, those FSKs could end up with a very high score. There are plenty of other experience-based FSKs that I'm guessing you wouldn't respect very much. But with this weighting system you can have a very high score without actually being falsifiable, testable or reproducible. How can that be?
5) How did you actually evaluate each of these categories to get a number? Or did you just give them a number based on your sense? For example, how does one go about testing the amount of predictive power of science? or the degree of empiricalness? Does one look at all research during a year, then work out how much of the methodology was empirical, how much was statistical analysis, how much was...and so on? How far back in time? And again what FSK is used to evaluate these things? Is it science itself?

Let's say you agree with my point about the weighting and adjust it. Fine. But still there is an opaque to us process that is coming up with these numbers. Now we see the steps FROM THIS POINT FORWARD where you come up with totals, but it still seems like your 'sense' is the guiding rule of the FSK that is evaluating other FSKs. Does this FSK meet those criteria? If not, how can we judge it fair or remotely accurate? If so, then given that objectivity is intersubjectivity who else has worked on this meta-FSK or confirmed/approved it? How do we test it? Is it falsifiable? Is it empirical? Would someone in Detroit, using this Meta-FSK arrive at the same numbers?

I did see that you called this tentative. Fine. I think these are the kinds of questions you'd need to answer before it leaves a very tentative status.

And there's still the issue that, it need not matter a bit if thousands of scientific facts from the scientific FSK are used in describing or arguing for something. The alien abductions scenario could be presented with pages of scientific papers about metallurgy, interspecies genetic mixing (there's a tremendous amount on viruses alone), different kinds of energy and so on. But if there is a single jump that is not justified, the whole thing falls flat. It doesn't matter if it's one sentence in 30 pages. That's not 99% scientific, it ends up being nothing.

A code block should give you properly formatted output with minimal effort

Let's go back to one of your earlier comparisons:

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.

Here's there rules and protocols for coming of with ratings of gymnasts.
https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/ ... %20COP.pdf
Notice how complicated their system is.
And think of that in the context of
1) gymnastic events (that they evaluate) are very controlled and limited
2) science is an incredibly diverse set of processes with all sorts of different focii, protocols, rules and so on. Many orders of magnitude more complicated than the gymnastic events this organization evaluates.
3) this is a gymnastic organization using experts in gymnastics to evaluate gymnasts.
4) you are an individual non-expert creating your own personal FSK, without experts, and evaluating other FSKs.
5) at any time a different organization could come forward with their own rating system. This has happened in other sports and often there are unifying events, where they try to come up with the undisputed best. According to you in those situations each organization's selected winner would be the objective best. There would be more than one best and this would be a fact.
6) For any evaluation, this organization can bring up paper and other documentation of the precise process through which and by whom a particular even was evaluated, perhaps nowadays with video of the performance. While you haven't shown us how you would evaluate a single scientific research project/conclusion. For each evaluation they could whip out the credentials of the judge, the specific criteria used for the specific event and the specific results.

I've seen your list, obviously, of the criteria, but no mention of how you approach even the work of one scientist or one research project to determing the ratings.

You assign rates to each criterion, but there is no clear process.

You took a step in the right direction by showing how you weigh things. But there is still this gap between what you evaluate and your criteria.

And that's why we continue to react like you are making up numbers.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:28 am Here is a TENTATIVE and provisional exercise in the rating of degrees of FSK-ed objectivity using the SAME set of main Criteria and Weightages. There is a long list of necessary criteria and I have not used all here because those left out are not significant.

As Thomas Kuhn recognised, it doesn't even work for short lists applied to the field you think is the most reliable:

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:

1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.

2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.

3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.

4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)

5. It should make predictions that come true.

However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

Note, in the comparison of FSKs, I refer to each FSK in their best, e.g. science at its best would refer to the Physics, Chemistry, Biology FSK based on direct empirical evidence, not their speculative sciences.

In the Philosophy of Science, there are two main camps i.e. Scientific Realism vs Scientific AntiRealism.
Scientific Realism claims that science is discovering the truths of a mind-independent reality out there.
Scientific AntiRealism [my view], is "anti-" opposes, and rejects the scientific realism's claim.

It is because of the illusory scientific realism claim that scientific truths are getting closer in correspondence to that mind-independent reality which led to the ongoing criticisms of scientific realism from Kuhn, Feyerbrand and others.
Popper claimed the so-called scientific truths are at best 'polished conjectures'.

So, there are loads of criticisms [deserved] on scientific knowledge on the basis of scientific realism or scientific anti-realism.

But despite the deserved and necessary criticisms on the weaknesses of scientific knowledge, on the best with best comparison, tell me what other fields of knowledge are more credible, reliable and objective than those from the scientific FSK?
Beside Mathematics which has near objectivity to science, which others field of knowledge are more credible, reliable and objective[/b] than those from the scientific FSK?

If you are at least an average rational person and critical thinker, I believe you will rate [on an intuitive basis and rough estimations] scientific knowledge [at the best] is the most credible, reliable and objective knowledge.

Because the scientific FSK is the most reliable, credible and objective [at least intuitively at present] we will take it as the standard which others can be compared to.
But how can we make such comparisons.

What I have done is to quantify the objectivity of each FSK and comparing them to the Scientific FSK as the standard.

What my OP is concern with is the question of whether the principles and basic methodology I presented are justifiable or not?

I am not interested in debating what should be the final list of criteria, their weightages and how scores are assigned or judge.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 1:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 8:28 am Discuss?? Views??

ps. can anyone show how can I post tables in this forum?

I think you'd have to import an image. An excel doc or something.

OK, look, great. You took the step to make your process of arriving at numbers more transparent. Great. I still think there are problems, but I appreciate the effort.

The first issue I'd want to focus on is

Scientific FSK
Criteria............................W.......Score ....Point
Empirical Evidence:..............0.85....90.......76.50
Predictive Power:.................0.04...90.........3.60
Testability and Falsifiability:....0.04...90........3.60
Reproducibility:...................0.05...90........4.50
Consistency w Existing
Knowledge:........................0.01...90.........0.90
Logical Coherence:...............0.01...90.........0.90
Total: ..............................1.00.............90.00

Questions:
1) on what grounds did you weight the various criteria?
2) is this an FSK? IOW you have a methodology for measuring the various fields of inquiry. What is this FSK? How objective is it?
3) You've weighted empirical evidence at 90? How did you arrive at this figure?
4) You rate empirical evidence very high and predictive power, testability and reproducibility very low. Of course this is how you evaluate, but no scientist would rate things like this, for example. Anecdotal evidence can be very high in support of an FSK - the alien abduction scenario, or folk psychology theories - but have very low scores, many would think, on those other three categories. So, those FSKs could end up with a very high score. There are plenty of other experience-based FSKs that I'm guessing you wouldn't respect very much. But with this weighting system you can have a very high score without actually being falsifiable, testable or reproducible. How can that be?
5) How did you actually evaluate each of these categories to get a number? Or did you just give them a number based on your sense? For example, how does one go about testing the amount of predictive power of science? or the degree of empiricalness? Does one look at all research during a year, then work out how much of the methodology was empirical, how much was statistical analysis, how much was...and so on? How far back in time? And again what FSK is used to evaluate these things? Is it science itself?

As I had written above;
What my OP is concern with is the question of whether the principles and basic methodology I presented are justifiable or not?

I am not interested in debating in this OP what should be the final list of criteria, their weightages and how scores are assigned or judge.

My principle is, in the comparison of FSKs, I refer to each FSK in their best, e.g. science at its best would refer to the Physics, Chemistry, Biology FSK based on direct empirical evidence, not their speculative sciences.
"Anecdotal evidence" is not applicable to the above natural sciences.

The weightages and scores I gave above are the best estimates as tentative, but can be changed upon further deliberation. Even the the above list of criteria will be subject to changes.

Direct Empirical evidences is the most critical to the natural sciences, i.e. without empirical evidence it is non-starter for these sciences, thus empirical evidence should carry the highest weight

Where the sub-sciences relies on "Anecdotal evidence" their score for "empirical evidence" would be low. Example;
Empirical Evidence: [Anecdotal]..............0.85....20.......17.00

Let's say you agree with my point about the weighting and adjust it. Fine. But still there is an opaque to us process that is coming up with these numbers. Now we see the steps FROM THIS POINT FORWARD where you come up with totals, but it still seems like your 'sense' is the guiding rule of the FSK that is evaluating other FSKs. Does this FSK meet those criteria?
If not, how can we judge it fair or remotely accurate?
If so, then given that objectivity is intersubjectivity who else has worked on this meta-FSK or confirmed/approved it? How do we test it? Is it falsifiable? Is it empirical? Would someone in Detroit, using this Meta-FSK arrive at the same numbers?

I do not agree with your specific points re weighting.
However, the variables involved are likely to change with further deliberations.
There is no question of someone or myself making any sole decisions, that would be literally subjective and not objective.
Whatever [criteria, weightages, scores] are proposed, it must be discussed deliberated, debated by thousands or millions of people to arrive at a consensus, thus giving it the objectivity qualification.

I did see that you called this tentative. Fine. I think these are the kinds of questions you'd need to answer before it leaves a very tentative status.

That is part of my natural processes in the future.

And there's still the issue that, it need not matter a bit if thousands of scientific facts from the scientific FSK are used in describing or arguing for something. The alien abductions scenario could be presented with pages of scientific papers about metallurgy, interspecies genetic mixing (there's a tremendous amount on viruses alone), different kinds of energy and so on. But if there is a single jump that is not justified, the whole thing falls flat. It doesn't matter if it's one sentence in 30 pages. That's not 99% scientific, it ends up being nothing.

Re alien abduction claims at present [assuming they are accepted within an organization], in contrast to the standard based on the natural sciences, we can estimate the following;

Empirical Evidence: [speculations]..............0.85....5.......4.25
Verification, Testability, Reproducibility would be at 0 [zero].
As such the total score re objectivity would be very low in contrast to the standard.

After polishing the above >500 times, I am confident I will arrive at something that is reasonable.

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

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.

I wrote in the previous post;
"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].

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 weigh[tages]

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

Thin air??
Thin air would be based on arbitrary whims without any deliberations at all.

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.

I had stated what I presented is tentative and provision and the focus is on the principles and methodology. The numbers are secondary.
Intuitively the scientific-FSK [at its best] is to be the Standard.

To rate 'Direct Empirical Evidence' for the scientific FSK with a weightage of 0.80 is reasonable for a start, because without direct empirical evidence it would be a non-starter for the natural-science FSK.
It would be a taboo for any scientists of the Physics, Chemistry, Biology FSK [at their best*] if there are no direct empirical evidence to be considered in their scientific work.
*Relying on indirect evidences and mathematical models for theorizing and speculation would not be "at their best".

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?

As I had stated, it is provisional and tentative with the focus on the principles and methodologies.
Yes, the numbers arise from my intuition but with some degrees of rationalization and they are not merely arbitrary whims out of the blue 'thin air'.
When I get serious onto the final numbers, I will provide the full justifications for their 'why' and how I arrive at the numbers.

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.

'Gnat' in this case refer to one who is dogmatic clasping to the one-tracked fundamentalistic ideology of an illusory mind-independent idea [philosophical realism] and insisting it is really real.
Relying on the unreal to critique the real [my approach] is below par.

I pointed to the sport of gymnastic to give an idea of the principles and methodology that we can quantify 'subjectivity' to 'objectivity' on the basis of intersubjectivity.
Note we can even quantify beauty as in beauty contest but their FSK would be very less objective that that of gymnastics.

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.

As I had stated my participation in this forum is purely for my very own selfish interests.
It is like an electronic note book for me to jot down my thoughts.
If there is anything positive from posters that is secondary, other than that I don't give a damn with the reactions of posters here [given I am familiar with their psychological states of most].
Despite the negatives, my "Ethics and Morality Folder" to date has grown to "1,738 Files in 105 Folders" since I started to address that PH's >600-pages-thread, so that is productive for me for me to continue.

The point with participating in more a serious philosophical "arena" [.. I am member in a few] one cannot treat it like a note book for jotting out one's thoughts [whenever it pops out] freely.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 4:53 am The point with participating in more a serious philosophical "arena" [.. I am member in a few] one cannot treat it like a note book for jotting out one's thoughts [whenever it pops out] freely.

Why have you jotted the same thought "a million times"? What sort of weirdo does that?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 9:03 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 4:53 am The point with participating in more a serious philosophical "arena" [.. I am member in a few] one cannot treat it like a note book for jotting out one's thoughts [whenever it pops out] freely.

Why have you jotted the same thought "a million times"? What sort of weirdo does that?

How come you are so ignorant with the better techniques in learning knowledge?

• Repetition is a key factor in memory and memorization. When we repeat something, we are more likely to remember it later. This is because repetition helps to embed the information in our long-term memory. Additionally, repetition can help us better recall information when we need it.
  https://irisreading.com/how-does-repeti ... orization/

The above process of repetition is very common recommendation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 4:53 am participating in more a serious philosophical "arena" [.. I am member in a few]

That mustn't have been cheap [like seriously]