The following is the foundation of the argument;
Philosophical Anti-Realism [PAR] is the opposite to Philosophical Realism.In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind).
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
Today it is more usually contrasted with [Philosophical] Anti-Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical Anti-Realism claims that objects [things] exist in reality interdependent with our [human] conception schemes.
Thus reality is interdependent and conditioned upon human conditions.
My PAR is not skepticism nor solipsism but rather it is Kantian Transcendental Idealism or Empirical Realism.
The Syllogism;
- P1 'IS' [empirical] is conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition OUGHT_ness
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS
The above is applicable similarly to the FACT-VALUE Dichotomy.
- P1 A 'FACT' [empirical] is conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition VALUE
C1 Therefore, VALUE is derived from FACT
If not, what is your counter to the above?