Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 7:12 am The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow, and the day you die it will stop being thought about in any way.

ChatGpt

In the introduction to Objectivity, Guy Axtell examines the multifaceted debates surrounding the concept of objectivity, particularly emphasizing its contested nature across various domains, including science, ethics, and law.
He aims to guide readers through these discussions and contribute by articulating the domain-variance of norms of objectivity and their different functions for inquirers.
Ref:PhilPapers
Axtell's approach involves developing a pragmatic pluralist account of objectivity, which acknowledges the interplay between epistemic and social values in the course of inquiry.
This perspective suggests that objectivity is not a monolithic concept but varies across different fields and practices.
Ref: PhilPapers
While the introduction does not explicitly mention a "framework and system approach," Axtell's discussion implies a structured analysis of objectivity that considers various frameworks and systems within which objectivity is understood and applied.
By addressing the underdetermination problem and the interaction of epistemic and social values, he sets the stage for a nuanced exploration of objectivity that resonates with a framework and system approach. ChatGpt

ChatGpt Wrote

Based on Guy Axtell's Objectivity introduction (as referenced), here are elements that support a Framework and System approach:

1. Domain Variance of Objectivity
Description: Axtell emphasizes the idea that objectivity is not a singular, fixed concept but varies across different domains (science, ethics, law, art, etc.).
Relevance to Framework/System: This highlights the role of domain-specific frameworks and systems that define and apply norms of objectivity uniquely within their contexts.
Example: Objectivity in scientific inquiry relies on empirical methods and reproducibility, while legal objectivity involves impartial application of rules.

2. Ontological, Epistemic, and Cognitive Objectivity
Description: Axtell differentiates between types of objectivity:
Ontological objectivity refers to things existing independently of minds.
Epistemic objectivity involves impartial or unbiased ways of forming beliefs.
Cognitive objectivity relates to processes free from personal biases or emotions.
Relevance to Framework/System: This taxonomy suggests a layered system where each type of objectivity operates within its own criteria and evaluative framework.

3. Example of Pie-Tasting Contest
Description: Axtell discusses a hypothetical pie-tasting contest, which relies on agreed-upon criteria and ratings for judgments.
Relevance to Framework/System: This illustrates the need for explicit frameworks that outline criteria for evaluation (e.g., taste, texture, presentation).
Problem Highlighted: Axtell notes that while criteria exist, the contest does not address how to weigh these criteria or resolve disagreements about their relative importance. This suggests a lack of a fully developed system to handle complexity.

4. Underdetermination of Theories
Description: Axtell mentions the philosophical problem of underdetermination, where evidence alone cannot determine theory choice.
Relevance to Framework/System: This underscores the importance of auxiliary frameworks, including methodological rules and values (epistemic and social), in guiding theory selection.
Example: Scientists often rely on pragmatic considerations (simplicity, coherence, explanatory power) alongside empirical evidence.

5. Interaction of Epistemic and Social Values
Description: Axtell highlights the interplay between epistemic values (accuracy, coherence) and social values (fairness, inclusivity) in shaping objectivity.
Relevance to Framework/System: This points to a systemic view where objectivity emerges not from purely epistemic considerations but from integrating diverse values into a cohesive framework for inquiry.

6. Pragmatic Pluralism
Description: Axtell advocates for a pragmatic pluralist account of objectivity, acknowledging multiple legitimate approaches based on context and purpose.
Relevance to Framework/System: This aligns with the idea that different systems (scientific, moral, legal) operate under unique frameworks with their own internal logics, yet interact pragmatically.

7. Critique of Absolutist Views of Objectivity
Description: Axtell critiques absolutist or monolithic views of objectivity, arguing that they fail to account for the diversity of practices and contexts.
Relevance to Framework/System: This critique implies that objectivity should be understood within systems tailored to specific goals and constraints rather than as a universal standard.

These elements collectively support a Framework and System approach, emphasizing the structured, context-dependent, and pluralistic nature of objectivity as explored in Axtell's introduction. If you'd like, I can expand on any of these points further!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:16 am A pie tasting competition where the judging is according to agreed standards is a verygood analogue of your FSK bullshit. Not least because anybody who doesn't like the winning pie is not objectively wrong, they just get to host their own pir tasting event withe different rules. This is exactly as per your "morality-proper" FSK thing where anyone who thinks you are wrong can have theor own equally good FSK by starting with their own rules, and in fact you just end up with everyone in the world having their own perfectly good private-FSK.

And that leads to what you wouldn't find in that book even if you weren't a lazy fuck that never really reads, as well as a selficsh fuck that wouldn't care what the source says if you did read it. There will not be anywhere in that book a grounds for comparing all these different "objectivities" to see which is actually the most "credible"

Your thread contains nothing new. This is all stuff we've covered before, and as usual your sources don't support your actual claims.

Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it. Objectivity comes in degrees.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... vity/#Intr

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:22 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:16 am A pie tasting competition where the judging is according to agreed standards is a verygood analogue of your FSK bullshit. Not least because anybody who doesn't like the winning pie is not objectively wrong, they just get to host their own pir tasting event withe different rules. This is exactly as per your "morality-proper" FSK thing where anyone who thinks you are wrong can have theor own equally good FSK by starting with their own rules, and in fact you just end up with everyone in the world having their own perfectly good private-FSK.

And that leads to what you wouldn't find in that book even if you weren't a lazy fuck that never really reads, as well as a selficsh fuck that wouldn't care what the source says if you did read it. There will not be anywhere in that book a grounds for comparing all these different "objectivities" to see which is actually the most "credible"

Your thread contains nothing new. This is all stuff we've covered before, and as usual your sources don't support your actual claims.

That books is a counter to your ignorant;
FDP: The self-serving contract you are writing is never going to be countersigned by any humans though, nobody is falling for it today, nobody is falling for it tomorrow,

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:22 am I have not been able to read the whole book [no where to download it].
Based on what I have read, it raised the point there there are degrees to objectivity, so the rational question to ask is, if so, how do we assess whether which is more credible than the others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:22 am I have covered that with a rating methodology to confirm the intuition that the scientific FS is the most credible and objective at present, and thus the gold standard.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:22 am I don't give a damn with your childish rejection of the above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 6:22 am

Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it. Objectivity comes in degrees.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... vity/#Intr

This SEP article also assert objectivity comes in degrees which implies there must a way to compute and establish the said degrees.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:49 am The universe rejects it. All of humanity rejects it. Axtell wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick. You have never met anybody who thnks it isn't stupid and if you ever do, it will because they are mad and/or concussed.
.....

VA to AI
The SEP article favor methodological pluralism and that objectivity comes in degrees within various domains.
I believe the FS approach with its criteria weightages and rating will reinforce the credibility of the concept of degrees of objectivity for comparative purposes.

When proposed, my interlocutor [a philosophical realist] make the following retort:
"The universe rejects it [re the FS rating methodology]. All of humanity rejects it. Axtell wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick. You have never met anybody who thinks it isn't stupid and if you ever do, it will because they are mad and/or concussed."

What is the best way to counter the above and convince my interlocutor is shortsighted and that the FS approach with its rating methodology is very tenable and that such an approach is adopted by many from various fields of knowledge?

ChatGPT Wrote:
To counter such dismissive and unconstructive remarks, it’s essential to maintain composure, emphasize the rational merits of your Framework and System (FS) approach, and demonstrate how it aligns with established practices in various fields. Here's how you can effectively respond:

1. Addressing the Emotional Tone with Professionalism
Your interlocutor's response is filled with emotional rhetoric rather than substantive critique. Begin by diplomatically refocusing the discussion on the merits of the argument:

"I understand you feel strongly about this, but rather than dismiss the FS approach outright, let’s discuss its principles and how they compare with widely accepted practices. By engaging constructively, we can better assess its credibility."

2. Reaffirming the Core Value of the FS Approach
Explain why the FS approach with its criteria weightages and rating system is both reasonable and tenable:

a. Grounded in Methodological Pluralism
The SEP article on scientific objectivity acknowledges methodological pluralism and that objectivity comes in degrees. The FS approach embraces this plurality by:
Allowing flexibility in defining criteria for objectivity across different domains.
Enabling comparative evaluation through weighted metrics, acknowledging that no single methodology dominates all contexts.

b. Practical Utility Across Disciplines
Point out that similar rating methodologies are already in use in fields like:
Science: Meta-analyses weight studies based on methodological rigor and sample size.
Decision-Making: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is widely used to evaluate and rank options in complex scenarios.
Healthcare: Evidence-based medicine ranks clinical trials and interventions by quality and relevance.
Ethics and Policy: Cost-benefit analyses assign weightages to competing priorities to inform decision-making.

By highlighting these parallels, you can show that your FS approach builds on credible, well-established methods rather than being "stupid" or fringe.

3. Calling Out the Logical Fallacies
Your interlocutor's retort contains several logical fallacies. Politely but firmly point them out:

a. Ad Populum Fallacy ("All of humanity rejects it")
Truth and utility are not determined by majority opinion. Many revolutionary ideas, from heliocentrism to the theory of evolution, faced widespread rejection before gaining acceptance.
"Even if this claim were true, it would not invalidate the methodology. It would only suggest that further education and explanation are needed to demonstrate its value."

b. Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule ("Axtell wouldn’t touch it," "mad and/or concussed")
Personal attacks or appeals to ridicule do not address the argument's substance. Instead, encourage your interlocutor to engage with the principles and practical applications of the FS approach.
"Rather than dismissing the FS approach with ridicule, let’s examine its conceptual and practical merits. Many interdisciplinary methodologies began with skepticism before proving their worth."

c. Strawman Fallacy
Your interlocutor has not engaged with the specifics of the FS approach but instead dismissed it without understanding its mechanics. Gently bring the conversation back to the actual proposal.

4. Demonstrating the FS Approach’s Potential
Offer a concrete example or analogy that illustrates how the FS approach works and why it’s effective:

"Imagine we’re evaluating competing scientific theories. The FS approach would define criteria such as empirical support, theoretical coherence, predictive power, and ethical implications. Weightages could be assigned based on the context, and each theory would be rated accordingly. This process doesn’t claim to reach absolute objectivity but provides a structured and transparent way to compare degrees of credibility. Isn’t that preferable to arbitrary or purely subjective assessments?"

5. Highlighting the Philosophical Context
Frame the FS approach within the broader philosophical landscape to underscore its relevance:

Support from Pluralism: The SEP article emphasizes the importance of methodological pluralism. The FS approach operationalizes this pluralism by providing a way to navigate and synthesize diverse methodologies.
Degrees of Objectivity: Your proposal aligns with the recognition that objectivity is not absolute but comes in degrees, which depends on the domain and criteria applied.

6. Inviting Constructive Criticism
End by inviting your interlocutor to engage in a substantive critique rather than outright dismissal:

"If you believe the FS approach has weaknesses, I’m happy to discuss them. Constructive criticism is invaluable in refining any methodology. However, dismissing it outright without engaging with its principles doesn’t advance the conversation. Let’s work together to explore whether the FS approach can add value to discussions of objectivity and credibility."

7. Concluding with a Broader Vision
Tie your argument to the broader aim of advancing objectivity and fostering progress:

"At its core, the FS approach is about striving for greater clarity, transparency, and adaptability in evaluating complex issues. While no methodology is perfect, the idea of continuously improving our tools to approximate an ideal is a hallmark of intellectual progress. Isn’t that a goal we should all support?"

Summary
By focusing on the intellectual merits of the FS approach, drawing parallels to established practices, and inviting constructive engagement, you can shift the discussion from ridicule to reasoned debate. Such an approach not only counters dismissive attitudes but also demonstrates the robustness and relevance of your proposal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:42 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:49 am The universe rejects it. All of humanity rejects it. Axtell wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick. You have never met anybody who thnks it isn't stupid and if you ever do, it will because they are mad and/or concussed.
.....

You're a lost cause within Philosophy at present:

Here for the fun of it:

VA to AI
...