From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

[Skepdick]

That's a possibility we have to consider, but let's hear him/her out. He seems on to something but I can't quite put my finger on it.

What he is onto is the axiom that some facts are better than other facts.

But he won't give us his theory of "betterness"; and so there's no way for us to figure out exactly why objective facts are better than subjective facts.

Why not the opposite? Why aren't subjective facts better than objective facts?

[Agent Smith]

That's a possibility we have to consider, but let's hear him/her out. He seems on to something but I can't quite put my finger on it.

What he is onto is the axiom that some facts are better than other facts.

But he won't give us his theory of "betterness"; and so there's no way for me to figure out exactly why objective facts are better than subjective facts.

I see. It would depend on what our goal is I suppose.

[Skepdick]

That's a possibility we have to consider, but let's hear him/her out. He seems on to something but I can't quite put my finger on it.

What he is onto is the axiom that some facts are better than other facts.

But he won't give us his theory of "betterness"; and so there's no way for me to figure out exactly why objective facts are better than subjective facts.

I see. It would depend on what our goal is I suppose.

His goal is to define morality, and in that valliant effort he keeps pre-supposing it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm happy to see that we've come so far. Subjective facts are objective facts, but it looks like we still haven't figured out why or how or ... ?

Why and how..?

We need to define what is fact.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

We need to define what is objectivity:
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

We need to define 'what is subjectivity'
The term [subjectivity] is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Subjectivity and objectivity are usually seen as two directly opposing views; therefore, an understanding of one usually influences that of the other.

Since subjectivity and objectivity are in direct opposition, there is a continuum between them, such a degrees of greyness between black and white.

Facts can be subjective [relates to a subject or subjects] or objective when conditioned upon a collective of subjects [e.g. Scientific facts].

Point is in all cases, the necessary conclusions must be qualified, verified and justified.

What possible difficulties do you see?

True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.

It is a very counter-intuitive term but if we define the context over a continuum accordingly it make sense.

[Skepdick]

It is a very counter-intuitive term but if we define the context over a continuum accordingly it make sense.

This is not a problem of continuity or intuition.

It's a problem of your context being implicit, not explicit.

In what context are are objective facts better than subjective facts and why?
Is there a context in which subjective facts are better than objective facts?

[Agent Smith]

What he is onto is the axiom that some facts are better than other facts.

But he won't give us his theory of "betterness"; and so there's no way for me to figure out exactly why objective facts are better than subjective facts.

I see. It would depend on what our goal is I suppose.

His goal is to define morality, and in that valliant effort he keeps pre-supposing it.

I intelligo ... I now see where's he going with this subjectivity-objectivity discussion. I hope he's successful if only for the reason that it'd solve many, perhaps all, of our problems.

[Agent Smith]

Why and how..?

We need to define what is fact.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

We need to define what is objectivity:
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

We need to define 'what is subjectivity'
The term [subjectivity] is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Subjectivity and objectivity are usually seen as two directly opposing views; therefore, an understanding of one usually influences that of the other.

Since subjectivity and objectivity are in direct opposition, there is a continuum between them, such a degrees of greyness between black and white.

Facts can be subjective [relates to a subject or subjects] or objective when conditioned upon a collective of subjects [e.g. Scientific facts].

Point is in all cases, the necessary conclusions must be qualified, verified and justified.

What possible difficulties do you see?

True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.

It is a very counter-intuitive term but if we define the context over a continuum accordingly it make sense.

I intelligo ... I've seen intuition fail on many occasions. I also see the rationale behind your line of argument. I'll be watching the discussion closely.

[FlashDangerpants]

True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.

It is a very counter-intuitive term but if we define the context over a continuum accordingly it make sense.

I intelligo ... I've seen intuition fail on many occasions. I also see the rationale behind your line of argument. I'll be watching the discussion closely.

Subjective facts are a special kind of fact that, if contradicted by some other subjective fact, are still true, even though it is also true that they are not true.

From this he believes he can make a credible machine to convert moral beliefs into facts by getting "experts" to assign quantities of badnesses to things until all the things have been listed by the experts and sorted into order from most to least badnesses. Which is the point of this particular thread.

But the factual assertion he makes that this can be credible is as a logical requirement subjective by nature, and it is not wrong to point out that it is insane and stupid bandwagoneering. Also, once he's made is moral science, nothing prevents you from forming your own expert group and giving different badnesses to all the things and making what was officially evil the best thing ever.

His view of science appears to be that scientific dissent is heresy and the truth of the matter is unconvered according to how many beardy men agree with any given theory. That last thing, that is what he believes scientific objectivity means.

[Skepdick]

Subjective facts are a special kind of fact that, if contradicted by some other subjective fact, are still true, even though it is also true that they are not true.

The VA-idiot pre-supposes morality, and this idiot pre-supposes how facts and contradictions are supposed to work.

[Iwannaplato]

In the theory-construction category.

He's injecting values/preferences in the meta-theory which directly affects how his main theory functions, while hoping that we wouldn't notice.

His meta-theory mechanics are thus:

1. Dualise: facts -> objective facts + subjective facts.
2. Rank arbitrarily: objective facts > subjective facts.

OK, I'll need some help with this.
Would it make sense to say that his theory would be stronger if he lost the dualism (number 1) and just said we come up with facts in different areas of knowledge in different ways?

And then I long ago asked him what FSK ranks science as the most credible/reliable FSK. Me presuming that to rank FSKs you need to have an FSK, if, as he has stated every realm of knowledge has an FSK. And then you can't use science to rank science as the most reliable. Is my question related to what you consider subpar?

After all why aren't subjective facts as good as; or better than objective facts?

Again it would seem better to leave out the dualism (and perhaps especially with his FSK idea as central). Subjective fact sounds oxymoronic OR subjective isn't necessary. Objective facts seems redundant OR 'objective' isn't necessary.

This is me trying to triangulate.

If some specific facts would help, feel free to use them.

I'm not sure fact is the best word. Model? Heuristic? I realize heuristics seem verby and facts are often about nouns, but still I like the ad hocness.

[FlashDangerpants]

Subjective facts are a special kind of fact that, if contradicted by some other subjective fact, are still true, even though it is also true that they are not true.

The VA-idiot pre-supposes morality, and this idiot pre-supposes how facts and contradictions are supposed to work.

The only way for you tell me I am wrong is to agree with me.

[Skepdick]

The only way for you tell me I am wrong is to agree with me.

Sure. I agree with you that you are wrong.

Why do you feel there was any disagreement on the matter?

[FlashDangerpants]

The only way for you tell me I am wrong is to agree with me.

Sure. I agree with you that you are wrong.

Whatever. If you are right then I am right too because a proposition can be both true and false at once.
If I am right then a proposition can be true or false but cannot be both at once.
And I am right so you are therefore wrong.
And you think you are right and I am wrong, so you agree with me anyway.

There's no paradox, it just unravels.

[Skepdick]

The only way for you tell me I am wrong is to agree with me.

Sure. I agree with you that you are wrong.

Whatever. If you are right then I am right too because a proposition can be both true and false at once.
If I am right then a proposition can be true or false but cannot be both at once.
And I am right so you are therefore wrong.
And you think you are right and I am wrong, so you agree with me anyway.

There's no paradox, it just unravels.

Whether I am right or wrong was never in question.

The only issue on the table was whether you are wrong. We seem to have agreed on that?

[FlashDangerpants]

What an excellent little play we just put on to demonstrate the silliness subjective fact that is neither true nor false nor has any claim to offer truths, nor any method of falsification.