Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:08 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:28 am Is FSK an actual thing? ..or is it Veritas' invention?

His own invention. He still doesn't realise how idiotic it all is to everyone else.

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.

Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.

"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

2. Provide Examples of Implicit FSKs
Scientific FSK: The scientific community relies on a framework built on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. This is a well-documented system of knowledge.
Legal FSK: Legal systems are frameworks based on statutes, case law, and principles like justice and fairness.
Cultural FSK: Different cultures operate within their own frameworks of knowledge, values, and practices, demonstrating that FSKs are ubiquitous.

"Every discipline, community, or system of inquiry operates within an implicit or explicit framework and system of knowledge. I am merely articulating this universal practice with the term 'FSK.'"

3. Highlight Philosophical Precedents
Philosophy and Paradigms: Refer to Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in science as examples of implicit FSKs. Kuhn described how scientific knowledge progresses within paradigms that dictate methods, questions, and interpretations.
Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism can be understood as an FSK, where human cognition structures knowledge through categories and principles.
Epistemology: Epistemologists often discuss "frameworks" or "systems" of justification, making the idea of FSK a recognized concept in philosophical inquiry.

"The notion of frameworks and systems guiding knowledge is not new. Philosophical traditions, from Kant to Kuhn, have long recognized the structured nature of human knowledge."

4. Frame FSK as an Explicit Articulation
Acknowledge that while the term FSK may not be commonly used, it is simply an explicit articulation of a widespread and intuitive concept.
Explain that articulating this concept with precision can help make it easier to analyze and discuss the structure of knowledge.

"The term 'FSK' is my way of explicitly articulating a common and widely observed reality: that all knowledge operates within structured frameworks and systems. Naming this concept makes it easier to discuss and analyze."

5. Invite Constructive Engagement
Challenge your accuser to provide examples of knowledge or cognition that do not rely on any framework or system.
Encourage them to critically assess whether FSK is genuinely an invention or a descriptive reality.

"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

This approach reinforces your position while demonstrating that the concept of FSK is grounded in well-established practices and philosophical insights. By framing FSK as a clarification of what is already common, you disarm accusations of inventing it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am "If you believe that FSK is an invention,

AI Overview
Learn more
FSK stands for Frequency-Shift Keying

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am "If you believe that FSK is an invention,

I google FSK, google says

AI Overview
Learn more
FSK stands for Frequency-Shift Keying

The entire first page of results says nothing about what you think FSK means. You did invent it.

Who if anyone in history used the expression "Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK)"? Summary only.

God wrote:Searched: 4 webpages
The expression "Framework and System of Knowledge" (FSK) is not widely attributed to any single historical figure but has appeared in discussions across various domains, particularly philosophy, education, and knowledge management.

Philosophical and Theoretical Contexts: The phrase has been used in epistemological discussions to denote a structured understanding or integration of knowledge, though it often lacks a unified definition. Discussions in online philosophy forums suggest its use as a rhetorical tool to organize abstract concepts, sometimes criticized for its vagueness​
PHILOSOPHY NOW FORUM (viewtopic.php?t=31889)
​
PUBLIC HISTORY WEEKLY
.

Educational Use: Scholars in history education and pedagogy, such as Peter Lee and Stéphane Lévesque, have discussed "frameworks of knowledge" in the context of helping students organize and relate historical narratives, but these uses are more implicit than tied explicitly to "FSK" as a term​
PUBLIC HISTORY WEEKLY
.

Knowledge Management: In organizational settings, frameworks and systems of knowledge are integral to processes that codify and distribute knowledge within institutions. Scholars like Davenport and Prusak have explored this within knowledge management literature, but the specific acronym "FSK" does not prominently appear in this field either​
REALKM
​
OXFORD ACADEMIC
.

Overall, while the concept behind FSK is addressed in various fields, its exact phrasing does not have a single historical origin or a universally accepted meaning. Instead, it appears contextually, often as a means to conceptualize structured knowledge systems.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:05 am Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:49 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:05 am Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

ChatGpt wrote:
To address accusations that you are inventing the concept of FSK (Framework and System of Knowledge), you can provide a robust explanation that emphasizes its basis in common practices of human cognition and knowledge-building. Here's how to respond effectively:

1. Clarify the Concept of FSK as a Common Fact
Define the FSK: Explain that a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) is simply a structured way of organizing and validating knowledge based on specific criteria. This is not an invention but a descriptive term for what humans have always done when constructing bodies of knowledge.

Example: The scientific method is an FSK built on empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, and critical peer review. Similarly, ethical systems, legal frameworks, or even religious beliefs rely on their own sets of foundational principles and validation mechanisms.

"FSK is not my invention; it is a descriptive term for the structured ways in which knowledge has always been organized and validated across different domains of human activity."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

2. Provide Examples of Implicit FSKs
Scientific FSK: The scientific community relies on a framework built on observation, experimentation, and falsifiability. This is a well-documented system of knowledge.
Legal FSK: Legal systems are frameworks based on statutes, case law, and principles like justice and fairness.
Cultural FSK: Different cultures operate within their own frameworks of knowledge, values, and practices, demonstrating that FSKs are ubiquitous.

"Every discipline, community, or system of inquiry operates within an implicit or explicit framework and system of knowledge. I am merely articulating this universal practice with the term 'FSK.'"

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

3. Highlight Philosophical Precedents
Philosophy and Paradigms: Refer to Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms in science as examples of implicit FSKs. Kuhn described how scientific knowledge progresses within paradigms that dictate methods, questions, and interpretations.
Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism can be understood as an FSK, where human cognition structures knowledge through categories and principles.
Epistemology: Epistemologists often discuss "frameworks" or "systems" of justification, making the idea of FSK a recognized concept in philosophical inquiry.

"The notion of frameworks and systems guiding knowledge is not new. Philosophical traditions, from Kant to Kuhn, have long recognized the structured nature of human knowledge."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

4. Frame FSK as an Explicit Articulation
Acknowledge that while the term FSK may not be commonly used, it is simply an explicit articulation of a widespread and intuitive concept.
Explain that articulating this concept with precision can help make it easier to analyze and discuss the structure of knowledge.

"The term 'FSK' is my way of explicitly articulating a common and widely observed reality: that all knowledge operates within structured frameworks and systems. Naming this concept makes it easier to discuss and analyze."

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

5. Invite Constructive Engagement
Challenge your accuser to provide examples of knowledge or cognition that do not rely on any framework or system.
Encourage them to critically assess whether FSK is genuinely an invention or a descriptive reality.

"If you believe that FSK is an invention, I invite you to provide an example of knowledge or cognition that does not rely on a framework or system. I suspect such examples will reinforce, rather than challenge, the universality of FSK."

This approach reinforces your position while demonstrating that the concept of FSK is grounded in well-established practices and philosophical insights. By framing FSK as a clarification of what is already common, you disarm accusations of inventing it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:49 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:05 am Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:49 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:05 am Wow. He's obviously had a chat going with GPT for a while, explaining his FSK and then just quizzed it as to provide the OP results.
Veritas, provide your question to GPT for the OP result, just out of interest.

VA to ChatGpt
My thesis is, whatever is knowledge or Cognition is contingent upon a human-based Framework and System [FS] of Knowledge of which the scientific FS is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.
Why the scientific FS is the gold standard is intuitive and implicit based on a ranking exercise of applying ratings and weightages to the rational criteria e.g. empirical evidence, testability, repeatability, peer review, etc.

However, my interlocutor will question me on what FS is the ranking system based on?
I answered the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom.
My interlocutor will then ask what is this FSK is this FSK based on, i.e. invoking an infinite regress of FSKs.

My question is, how can I resolve the infinite regress?

My interlocutor is not accepting a meta-FSK of a final FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom, in contrast to say,
for example matured scientists do not question what is the FSK beyond the Big Bang but accept the Big Bang as a tentative finality of the origin of the universe within the science Cosmological FSK.

AGAIN:
What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.
Also, explain the ranking system..

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:03 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:49 am

AGAIN:
What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.
Also, explain the ranking system..

Suppose your specialist insist you must have a surgery, would you choose the qualified surgeon in a reputable hospital [based on the medical science FSK] or the shaman down the road [Shaman medicine FSK]?
If you are normal average rational modern human, you are likely to opt for the qualified surgeon.
What is the reason for choosing the the qualified surgeon?
The reason is you have relied at least an intuitive implicit ranking system.
I am proposing we extract out the ranking system and made it explicit so that whatever the decision made, it is objective and transparent.

I am not suggesting we do a ranking for every decision to opt for one choice over another but it should be applicable to all critical human issues.

The FSK ranking is critical for my claim 'Morality is Objective' to be transparent as based on a morality-proper FSK which credibility and objectivity are as close and possible to the scientific FSK as the gold standard.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:48 am

Many people believe in something that could be called an FSK. But they mean different things by framework, system, knowledge. You have come up with your own specific model and your own specific acronym or really acronyms.

And then:
You really needed an AI to help you respond to that?????????

And of course the AI does not know how you actually use the term in context in arguments, and how you have communicated about it. It's like you asked a stranger for a reference.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:03 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:52 pm
AGAIN:
What is wisdom doing in there? The reason I ask is because it is a rather ambiguously defined concept, especially considering this all important "FSK"...it shouldn't be there.
Also, explain the ranking system..

Suppose your specialist insist you must have a surgery, would you choose the qualified surgeon in a reputable hospital [based on the medical science FSK] or the shaman down the road [Shaman medicine FSK]?
If you are normal average rational modern human, you are likely to opt for the qualified surgeon.
What is the reason for choosing the the qualified surgeon?
The reason is you have relied at least an intuitive implicit ranking system.
I am proposing we extract out the ranking system and made it explicit so that whatever the decision made, it is objective and transparent.

I am not suggesting we do a ranking for every decision to opt for one choice over another but it should be applicable to all critical human issues.

The FSK ranking is critical for my claim 'Morality is Objective' to be transparent as based on a morality-proper FSK which credibility and objectivity are as close and possible to the scientific FSK as the gold standard.

Veritas, do you ever read what you are being questioned about?

You state: "..the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom."

Now I want you to think rationally and apply your critical thinking skills to consider if it truly is a good idea to include the concept of "wisdom" within the "FSK" thang.

I am asking WHY "wisdom" is included?

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity, sophont) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpreting and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:17 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 3:13 am Veritas, do you ever read what you are being questioned about?

You state: "..the ranking system is based on the FSK of rationality, critical thinking and wisdom."

Now I want you to think rationally and apply your critical thinking skills to consider if it truly is a good idea to include the concept of "wisdom" within the "FSK" thang.

I am asking WHY "wisdom" is included?

Wisdom (sapience, sagacity, sophont) is the use of one's knowledge and experience to make good judgements.[1][2][3][4] Wisdom is the interpreting and understanding of knowledge that leads to greater insight (e.g., common sense).[5][6][7] Wisdom is a pragmatic kind of "praxis (process)" where one is constantly using metacognition.

The above wisdom is applied in formulating the FSK ranking system.

Also, isn't it a wiser move [wisdom in action] to choose the qualified surgeon over the 'unqualified' shaman.