Philosophy Now Forum

Here is a Youtube video, admittedly at 55 minutes it might be a bit much for some, but it is good.
Metaphysics - Carnap on Ontology

It covers Carnap's approach to frameworks, which is probably the closest that any real philosopher will ever get to the FSK/FSRCK/KFC bucket of shame that VA is selling. So Carnap doesn't do any of that credibility rubbish, and certainly never says anything like "science which is the most credible" because some stuff VA spouts is just never going to happen.

The video also covers some of the criticisms that real philosophers have levelled against Carnap's linguistic frameworks, many of which are mirrored in criticisms that VA has glibly ignored here. Such as that one must be working within the framework to hold any regard for statements made that depend upon it for their truth value. Also the regress issues.

But what would actually benefit VA most would be an understanding of the ways in which Carnap doesn't overextend his theory with accretions of nonsense. An approach that VA might benefit from importing into his works when he comes to the inevitable point where he must fully reconsider the whole crumbly edifice he has constructed out of nightmares.

What would benefit VA the most would be a brain transplant. He and Skepdick are in the same boat after all.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:10 pm Here is a Youtube video, admittedly at 55 minutes it might be a bit much for some, but it is good.
Metaphysics - Carnap on Ontology

It covers Carnap's approach to frameworks, which is probably the closest that any real philosopher will ever get to the FSK/FSRCK/KFC bucket of shame that VA is selling. So Carnap doesn't do any of that credibility rubbish, and certainly never says anything like "science which is the most credible" because some stuff VA spouts is just never going to happen.

The video also covers some of the criticisms that real philosophers have levelled against Carnap's linguistic frameworks, many of which are mirrored in criticisms that VA has glibly ignored here. Such as that one must be working within the framework to hold any regard for statements made that depend upon it for their truth value. Also the regress issues.

But what would actually benefit VA most would be an understanding of the ways in which Carnap doesn't overextend his theory with accretions of nonsense. An approach that VA might benefit from importing into his works when he comes to the inevitable point where he must fully reconsider the whole crumbly edifice he has constructed out of nightmares.

Thanks for the lead to the above video.
I have listened to the full video and gone through the transcripts.

Actually the concept of Framework is a very common concept among philosophers, but many just do not emphasize on it.
Everytime a philosopher introduce a new unique view from previous philosophers, they are introducing a new Framework with its specific constitutions dished with its own neologisms which can also be viewed as a language game.

What is discussed in the video is confined to Frameworks which is limited since it does not extend to include 'system' like I am doing.

My approach is the same as Carnap, i.e.
Whatever is real, true, factual, exist, knowledge and objective must be conditioned or contingent upon a human-based Framework and System of E, R and C., i.e. FSRC.
Without a FSRC, whatever is claimed is meaningless.

I claimed the scientific FSRC is the most credible and objective of which the others to be compared to in terms of degrees of objective.
I have explained how we establish the scientific FSRC is the most objective.
As such, the scientific FSRC as the standard can use to determine the relative objectivity of other FSRC.
This resolved the "Conflicting frameworks" issue raised in the video.
This what Carnap did not consider and Kane B struggled with in the video.

Re regress, i.e. what is the FSRC of FSRC, I introduced the concept of a meta-FSRC which is all rational entities will accept.

Thus my concept of FSRC does cover and resolve all the questions raised within the video.

Note this:
Feyman: Need a Framework to Support Truth
viewtopic.php?p=699693#p699693