Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

You claim to have a background in physics, but I don't know how you could even have a high school or a 101 level class in your background while being so ignorant about basic physics knowledge . . . unless you're just trolling, which would be the more charitable option.

Off-topic.

How about you finally tell me where you believe the pdf you linked to before makes the claim that a hydrogen atom has a charge? Quote the specific passage.

Look at the site. This figure is what you are looking for..

Is "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" a hydrogen atom or is it "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" of a hydrogen atom?

The value Q_1 is what you are looking for. Q_1 is the charge which is seen from a distance r from the atom.

[Terrapin Station]

Off-topic.


Look at the site. This figure is what you are looking for..

Is "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" a hydrogen atom or is it "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" of a hydrogen atom?

The value Q_1 is what you are looking for. Q_1 is the charge which is seen from a distance r from the atom.

This is not what you linked to. Link to something that actually claims what you're claiming.

[bahman]

Is "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" a hydrogen atom or is it "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" of a hydrogen atom?

The value Q_1 is what you are looking for. Q_1 is the charge which is seen from a distance r from the atom.

This is not what you linked to. Link to something that actually claims what you're claiming.

It is.

[Terrapin Station]

The value Q_1 is what you are looking for. Q_1 is the charge which is seen from a distance r from the atom.

This is not what you linked to. Link to something that actually claims what you're claiming.

It is.

lol, no, it isn't. You can't even comprehend what you're referencing. The paper in general is about being able to pinpoint the position of an electron, and Q1(r) is about electronic charges within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr--that's not at all a claim about hydrogen atoms having a charge.

[bahman]

This is not what you linked to. Link to something that actually claims what you're claiming.

It is.

lol, no, it isn't. You can't even comprehend what you're referencing. The paper in general is about being able to pinpoint the position of an electron, and Q1(r) is about electronic charges within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr--that's not at all a claim about hydrogen atoms having a charge.

Oh yes, you are right. You need this figure . That is the electron distribution density, P_1(r). CE_1(r) is the charge distribution of electron and it is obtained by multiplying -e by P-1(r), so C_1(r)=-e*P_1(r). The proton is assumed to be at origin and has charge e. The charge that can be seen in the distance from r from the proton is then CH_1(r)=e(1-int_0^r Q_1(r')dr'). You know what Q_1(r) is. int stands for integral. I think things are clear now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm obviously a realist.

Nope! not so fast.
You are not a realist per se, but rather a Philosophical Realist which is a bastardized form of philosophical views.

Btw, I claimed to be an Empirical Realist which is more realistic and evidential.

Among other issues, idealists, who seem literally stuck in an infantile stage of development/understanding, conflate how we know something with what we know.
What we know isn't the same thing as how we know it.

You need to understand the term 'idealism'.

Idealism is the philosophical view that is related to mental-philosophical-ideas.

You are definitely ignorant you are an idealist, i.e. an empirical idealist, because what is empirical to you is confined to your mind/brain only. In your empirical idealism, what-is is independent of your brain/mind. The only way you are in touch with reality is via philosophically-mental-ideas.

And talk about ignorance, you're ignorant that empirical claims are not provable. (Re "prove to me ontic facts exist in themselves . . . ")

I am aware, empirical claims are not deductive but rather inferential.

I am also aware of the limitation of empirical claims, i.e. scientific truth, which according to Popper are merely 'polished conjectures'. But such scientific truths or facts are the best and most credible we have which has highest utility values [while mindful of its negatives].

It would be nice if you could attempt to support a claim contra an objection rather than copy-pasting from a script and starting two or three more logorrheic threads, but I've realized by this point that there's no way that's going to happen. You're an example of the telemarketer personality that's common on boards like this (objections are met with essentially canned/prescripted replies that are repetitively slogan-oriented; it's also similar to religious proselytizing).

Edit: I thought you said you were starting new threads. Instead you're directing me to old threads. That's worse. You're pawning me off to old telemarketing script as if that's going to address the stuff I'm bringing up that you don't want to think about/that you won't really address.

I can raise new threads but why the need to repeat.
The points I wanted to discuss in details are present in the OP.
All you need is to read the OP or a few relevant posts then you can add your own views or start a new specific thread.

I can raised new threads say 'What is a Fact?' but that will merely repeat the OP of the old thread.

Btw, are you aware of the origins of your philosophical views and what are their limitations?

At present I am reading the following book which is quite a tough read to grasp all the points,

• THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
  Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
  by Robert Hanna

Your philosophical views are among that heap of ashes and you are ignorant of it.

Note I raise a new thread;
A Philosophical Realist is an Empirical Idealist
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32009

[Skepdick]

I'm obviously a realist.

Among other issues, idealists, who seem literally stuck in an infantile stage of development/understanding, conflate how we know something with what we know. What we know isn't the same thing as how we know it.

Since all you have to offer in this exchange is a strawman, let me point out that you seem to be conflating how and what you know with WHY you know.

What exactly is it that you think you know or understand about a reality having been able to categorize and label it? That's the Myth of the Given.

Since you've openly admitted that "behaviourism is bullshit" (and in one swift wave of the hand you've dismissed all physics) I wonder where system dynamics fits into your epistemology. If it fits in at all.

Without behaviour (change over time) what you are is a naive realist and it's about as infantile as development gets. Classification/categorisation of "real things" is literally what toddlers and Philosophers do.

toddler.jpeg

Categories/categorisation is an epistemic function. The categorisation-scheme of "epistemology" and "ontology" is an epistemic artefact. All "ontologies" are fundamentally epistemic artefacts. The ontology of physics is only ever understood via the behaviour of the underlying Mathematics. Which is precisely where anti-realism comes into play. Quantum physics and contextuality.

On a more abstract level, model-theoretic anti-realist arguments hold that a given set of symbols in a theory [or a language; or a philosophy] can be mapped onto any number of sets of real-world objects—each set being a "model" of the theory—provided the relationship between the objects is the same.

[Peter Holmes]

That the cylindrical solid fits in the round hole isn't a matter of classification or categorisation.

There are no categories in reality (outside language), but only things that can be categorised (described) in different ways for different purposes.

But a description doesn't create or change the thing being described.

[Skepdick]

That the cylindrical solid fits in the round hole isn't a matter of classification or categorisation.

There are no categories in reality (outside language), but only things that can be categorised (described) in different ways for different purposes.

But a description doesn't create or change the thing being described.

Then why are you describing/classifying the thing as "cylindrical" and not "rectangular"; or "circular" or "yellow"?
Why aren't you classifying/describing it as an axle or a shaft?
Why aren't you classifying/describing it as a pillar?
Why aren't you classifying/describing it as a toy?
Why aren't you classifying/describing it by its chemical composition?
Why aren't you classifying/describing it by its quantum wave function?
Why aren'y you classifying/describing it by its relation to other parts?

Of all possible descriptions possible, why did you choose the one you chose? For what purpose did you describe it?

The description doesn't change the thing being described, but a factual description of object X that is true for purpose A, could be false for purpose B.

Multiple, mutually-incompatible descriptions are possible for the exact same thing being described.

[Peter Holmes]

True factual assertions:

'The description doesn't change the thing being described, but a factual description of object X that is true for purpose A, could be false for purpose B.'

'Multiple, mutually-incompatible descriptions are possible for the exact same thing being described.'

Assumptions behind these true factual assertions:

There is an 'exact same thing being described'. So there are features of reality independent from any description.

We can coherently talk about sameness and difference when we describe things - or the expression 'exact same thing' is incoherent.

[Skepdick]

There is an 'exact same thing being described'. So there are features of reality independent from any description.

Since I am currently busy describing and observing them, it's pertinently obvious to any non-idiot that they are not "independent from any description".

Or mind.

We can coherently talk about sameness and difference when we describe things - or the expression 'exact same thing' is incoherent.

It's only incoherent to you.

The notion of "sameness" and "thingness" are polymorphic. They have multiple (probably infinite) meanings.

For purpose A two things could be "exactly the same"
For purpose B two things could be "nothing alike"
For purpose C there aren't two "things" but only one "thing"
For purpose D there aren't two "things", but four "tings.
For purpose E the "exact same thing" is actually multiple different things.

Im any particular scenario I happen to know which meaning of "thing" and "sameness" I am using so it's 100% coherent to me.

In 2021 you really shouldn't bother with Philosophy until you learn about the different meanings of sameness

The point of communication is precisely to correct your misunderstanding. To turn your incoherence into a coherence.

[Peter Holmes]

Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And this includes the words truth, fact and objectivity. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. What we call a fact is either a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality whose truth-value - 'true', given the way we use the signs involved in context - is independent from opinion. And what we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth.

There are no categories in what we call reality - only things that can be categorised and described in different ways for different purposes. But a description doesn't create or change the thing being described.

Things that can be called 'the same' by one criterion can be called 'different' by another criterion. What we call 'identity' isn't a metaphysical thing - like a property that real things have or can have. But there are reasons for saying that what call a dog is different from what we call a tree. For example, only one of them cocks a leg and pisses up the other. That we don't have to distinguish between them doesn't mean that can't or shouldn't.

Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts - features of reality such as moral rightness and moral wrongness that are or were the case. If such moral things exist, then morality is objective. And the burden of proof (the test and demonstration) is with the claimants.

But, in my opinion, the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent. There are only facts about which there can be moral opinions. So moral realists and objectivists are chasing a will-o-the-wisp. Their belief is in vain. It's a delusion caused by a grammatical misunderstanding.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

But there are reasons for saying that what call a dog is different from what we call a tree. For example, only one of them cocks a leg and pisses up the other. That we don't have to distinguish between them doesn't mean that can't or shouldn't.

Some male dogs squat like bitches and some bitches cock their legs. Taxonomy is invented not discovered. Taxonomic classifications change .
Similarly every bit of meaning or understanding , every science and every art, every moral system or other system of governance, is invented not discovered.

It often suits our intuitions to imagine some information is discovered not invented, and Peter needs to revise his intuition about reality.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

But there are reasons for saying that what call a dog is different from what we call a tree. For example, only one of them cocks a leg and pisses up the other. That we don't have to distinguish between them doesn't mean that can't or shouldn't.

Some male dogs squat like bitches and some bitches cock their legs. Taxonomy is invented not discovered. Taxonomic classifications change .
Similarly every bit of meaning or understanding , every science and every art, every moral system or other system of governance, is invented not discovered.

It often suits our intuitions to imagine some information is discovered not invented, and Peter needs to revise his intuition about reality.

Are features of reality discovered or invented? Do descriptions create or change the things being described? This is mystical codswallop.

[Sculptor]

Peter Holmes wrote:

But there are reasons for saying that what call a dog is different from what we call a tree. For example, only one of them cocks a leg and pisses up the other. That we don't have to distinguish between them doesn't mean that can't or shouldn't.

Some male dogs squat like bitches and some bitches cock their legs. Taxonomy is invented not discovered. Taxonomic classifications change .
Similarly every bit of meaning or understanding , every science and every art, every moral system or other system of governance, is invented not discovered.

It often suits our intuitions to imagine some information is discovered not invented, and Peter needs to revise his intuition about reality.

Taxonomy is subjective.

An intelligence test was devised purely "objectively".

Name the ODD ONE OUT

a Screwdriver; A Saw; An Axe; and a lump of wood.

What's the objective answer?
The urbanite says lump of wood though he has no experience in practical matters he has a category "tool".
To a man who knows what to do with the items the odd one out is screwdriver, since the other three things form an assemblage since you can use them together.
A child might look at the colour.