From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

[Skepdick]

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.

I am all ears on a method!

What method of verification; or falsification do you propose for the claim that This color is red.

If that's not a subjective fact - I don't know what is. Suffice to say that we could agree on its truth-value.

That is if you consider truth to be valuable. Maybe you don't?

[Skepdick]

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?

I wouldn't even call that a theory. It's the sort of statement that we could accept as true because it seems to be so generic and unspecific so as to not matter even if it's wrong.

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?

It's in the same ballpark. Every time he uses the English words "more" or "less" (reliable, prestigious, valuable, useful) etc. etc. I hear Mathematical indquality. I hear FSK X > FSK Y; or FSK X < FSK Y with respect to whatever property they are being ranked upon.

But that's merely a declaration THAT FSK X ranks against FSK Y in that particular way.

It could be true that FSK X is better than FSK Y
It could be true that FSK X is worse than FSK Y
It could be true that FSK X is as good as FSK Y

VA never tells us HOW the evaluation is being made. He only tells us THAT the evaluation has been made; and he proeeds to give us the result of a ranking/evaluation only he knows how to do.

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.

Of course. But that undermines his very goal. He wants to rank facts according to some property.

He wants to be able to say things like "Fact X is better than Fact Y"

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.

For the purpose of ranking facts against each other - I am not even interested in playing VA's game.

But if we were to ponder on the "subjective fact" vs "objecrtive fact" distinction my intuition tells me that this color is red fits the bill of "subjective fact".

Think assigning the meaning 5 to the symbol x. "let x = 5". "let this color be red". This is a true/factual relationship and it has nothing to do with the correspondence theory of truth because color happens in your head. We know that color is subjective, but we can still triangulate it and arrive at consensus.

So we have a true statement that we both agree upon: This color is red. while we've totally side-stepped the question of factuality; and we've side-stepped the issue of whether this is objective or subjective truth.

[Iwannaplato]

It's in the same ballpark. Every time he uses the English words "more" or "less" (reliable, prestigious, valuable, useful) etc. etc. I hear Mathematical indquality. I hear FSK X > FSK Y; or FSK X < FSK Y with respect to whatever property they are being ranked upon.

But that's merely a declaration THAT FSK X ranks against FSK Y in that particular way.

It could be true that FSK X is better than FSK Y
It could be true that FSK X is worse than FSK Y
It could be true that FSK X is as good as FSK Y

VA never tells us HOW the evaluation is being made. He only tells us THAT the evaluation has been made; and he proeeds to give us the result of a ranking/evaluation only he knows how to do.

There was a period where he assigned numerical values to these assessments, including very low numbers for things like astrology. But often quite precise numbers also. Not something we could take as vague like 5% accurate and other multiples of five for other FSKs but I think even with after decimal point specifics.

Of course. But that undermines his very goal. He wants to rank facts according to some property.

Which is pretty common, but then it's generally from one FSK that one considers primary. I'm not saying that's right, just that his pluralism isn't really a pluralism, but we never get to see what his epistemological monism is. We just know it has determined that science is [and he used to give a number or small range for science's accuracy] the most accurate. It's the VA FSK that shall not be named.

He wants to be able to say things like "Fact X is better than Fact Y"

For the purpose of ranking facts against each other - I am not even interested in playing VA's game.

OK

[Skepdick]

There was a period where he assigned numerical values to these assessments, including very low numbers for things like astrology. But often quite precise numbers also. Not something we could take as vague like 5% accurate and other multiples of five for other FSKs but I think even with after decimal point specifics.

Yes. Assignment is precisely the problem - it's arbitrary. He could've assigned high value to astrology and low value to science. But that's already implicit in what he's trying to do - he values science more than astrology. He's just encoding his value-judgments in Mathematical language.

He is just exploiting the connotation that exists in Mathematics already. It's only by definition and social convention that 3 > 2 > 1. In practice you could just as easily define 2>3>1.

This will obviously assault your intuition, but that's only because you think the symbols have some inherent meaning - the meaning we call "value".

Which is pretty common, but then it's generally from one FSK that one considers primary. I'm not saying that's right, just that his pluralism isn't really a pluralism, but we never get to see what his epistemological monism is.

I imagine it's the "primary FSK" which decides on right and wrong... The primal dualism.

Be it the right/wrong use of language.
Or the right/wrong behaviour.
Or right/wrong on the predictions made.

Or the thousands other ways we use those terms to correct others.

We just know it has determined that science is [and he used to give a number or small range for science's accuracy] the most accurate. It's the VA FSK that shall not be named.

Yeah... And it didn't tell us HOW it has determined it. Which is what science actually does - the HOW is explicit.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah... And it didn't tell us HOW it has determined it. Which is what science actually does - the HOW is explicit.

To go into the how, he have to bring that FSK out of the closet. To compare facts from sociology, morality, science and parenting, he'd have to show what criteria/protocol he uses to assess the facts from each,
and we'd know his objective FSK, whatever it is. Though I don't think he's tried to consciously determine what it is.
It's implicitly science, but he can't be explicit about 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.

I am all ears on a method!

What method of verification; or falsification do you propose for the claim that This color is red.

If that's not a subjective fact - I don't know what is. Suffice to say that we could agree on its truth-value.

That is if you consider truth to be valuable. Maybe you don't?

Here you go, this comes from an essay in which john McDowell attempts to counter Mackie on the question of whether moral properties such as goodness are similar to secondary physical properties such as redness.

redness.JPG

It comes from the book which VA firmly insists contains an actual argument that Pete and I must be cognitively deficient to not agree with his moral fact stylings. Halfway through, no such argument yet. I wonder if it will show up?

[Skepdick]

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.

I am all ears on a method!

What method of verification; or falsification do you propose for the claim that This color is red.

If that's not a subjective fact - I don't know what is. Suffice to say that we could agree on its truth-value.

That is if you consider truth to be valuable. Maybe you don't?

Here you go, this comes from an essay in which john McDowell attempts to counter Mackie on the question of whether moral properties such as goodness are similar to secondary physical properties such as redness.

redness.JPG

It comes from the book which VA firmly insists contains an actual argument that Pete and I must be cognitively deficient to not agree with his moral fact stylings. Halfway through, no such argument yet. I wonder if it will show up?

That's a lot of words that I am not going to read...

Passing off trivial matters such as negotiating language about color to argumentation seems like... I don't really have a simile for this cognitive deficit.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a lot of words that I am not going to read...

Meh

[Sculptor]

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 ... ?

You might have to wait a bit longer.

When it comes to Mr Vertiarse is pays to not hold your breath.

[Sculptor]

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.

I am all ears on a method!

What method of verification; or falsification do you propose for the claim that This color is red.

If that's not a subjective fact - I don't know what is. Suffice to say that we could agree on its truth-value.

That is if you consider truth to be valuable. Maybe you don't?

Here you go, this comes from an essay in which john McDowell attempts to counter Mackie on the question of whether moral properties such as goodness are similar to secondary physical properties such as redness.

redness.JPG

It comes from the book which VA firmly insists contains an actual argument that Pete and I must be cognitively deficient to not agree with his moral fact stylings. Halfway through, no such argument yet. I wonder if it will show up?

Locke here is not talking about morality, but physical objects.
Secondary qualities might be colour, temperature and so on.
Va is on the wrong page.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am all ears on a method!

What method of verification; or falsification do you propose for the claim that This color is red.

If that's not a subjective fact - I don't know what is. Suffice to say that we could agree on its truth-value.

That is if you consider truth to be valuable. Maybe you don't?

Here you go, this comes from an essay in which john McDowell attempts to counter Mackie on the question of whether moral properties such as goodness are similar to secondary physical properties such as redness.

redness.JPG

It comes from the book which VA firmly insists contains an actual argument that Pete and I must be cognitively deficient to not agree with his moral fact stylings. Halfway through, no such argument yet. I wonder if it will show up?

Locke here is not talking about morality, but physical objects.
Secondary qualities might be colour, temperature and so on.
Va is on the wrong page.

On that page, the author (John McDowell) is explaining what Lockean secondary qualities are in general, using the traditional redness example. In the rest of the essay I can assure you that he is, as I describe, arguing that goodness and whatnot are also secondary qualities. I posted that page because it answers in a firly standard way, the this is red thing that Skepdick has been trying to float here for years. The relevance to Skepdick's thing was why I took a photo of a page in a philosophy book on the tube train home this evening.

By pure happenstance, in that same book of essays, according to VA, there lies a different argument in some other essay about cognitively impaired moral anti-realists including you and I. I'll let you know if I ever find that argument, however given that it would be career suicide to write it, and similarly as an editor to include such a scurrilous argument in a collection, and also to be the publisher who publishes such a thing, I can safely say that VA failed a basic reading test and no such argument was ever actually present.

I mention it at all only because I think VA should be mocked, mercilessly and often, not because of any actual relevance to Skepdick - who should only be mocked when there is nothing better to do.

[Sculptor]

Here you go, this comes from an essay in which john McDowell attempts to counter Mackie on the question of whether moral properties such as goodness are similar to secondary physical properties such as redness.

redness.JPG

It comes from the book which VA firmly insists contains an actual argument that Pete and I must be cognitively deficient to not agree with his moral fact stylings. Halfway through, no such argument yet. I wonder if it will show up?

Locke here is not talking about morality, but physical objects.
Secondary qualities might be colour, temperature and so on.
Va is on the wrong page.

On that page, the author (John McDowell) is explaining what Lockean secondary qualities are in general, using the traditional redness example. In the rest of the essay I can assure you that he is, as I describe, arguing that goodness and whatnot are also secondary qualities. I posted that page because it answers in a firly standard way, the this is red thing that Skepdick has been trying to float here for years. The relevance to Skepdick's thing was why I took a photo of a page in a philosophy book on the tube train home this evening.

Okay so a tennis ball is yellow.
IN what way can a ball have a moral quality?

I mention it at all only because I think VA should be mocked, mercilessly and often, not because of any actual relevance to Skepdick - who should only be mocked when there is nothing better to do.

It might be easier to say that a knife has moral qualities that are easier to define?
A knife can be used to kill.
It can also be used to release a person that is tied up.
Seriously? I can't think of anything you could not argue an opposite moral quality for the same object.

[promethean75]

Excuse me. there are no possible statements about u that are only true for u and nobody else... hence there are no 'subjective facts' (becuz facts are 'in' statements which are true).

if a statement is true and expresses some fact, that fact will be true for anyone who understands the statement.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay so a tennis ball is yellow.
IN what way can a ball have a moral quality?

I dunno, it's not my argument so there's 11 more pages of this essay to read before I can answer that. I was just reading a book on my way home from work, and the page I was on more or less directly addressed this stuff that Skepdick always bangs on about. So I took a photo of the page I was reading for the sheer serendipity of it and not much beyond.

If I think this essay makes a good enough case, perhaps I will raise it as a topic. for now, I will just point out that its title is "Values and Secondary Qualities" and I'm gonna have to leave a little to your imagination for a day or two.

But the gist is probably going to be that secondary properties such as redness are those that inspire a recognition of redness within the audience, and so the properties of events and situations that give rise to moral dispositions are likely to be the thing he propses as secondary evaluative properties. And that bit about being understood to be true in virtue of ... rather than actually being true in virtue of is going to have to do some irrationally heavy lifting.

[popeye1945]

There are no facts-in-themselves rather there are FSK conditioned facts which transits from subjective to objective facts.
The degree of objectivity will depend on the credibility and reliability of the FSK, of which at present, the scientific [also the mathematics] FSK is the most credible and reliable; it is used as standard to evaluate all other FSKs.

There are consideration of Subjective Facts, see;
The Objective Status of Subjective Facts
https://philarchive.org/archive/SANTOS-3

Here is how facts transit from subjective facts to objective facts.

this creation is not a thing-in-itself?
can the thinker think about the thinker-in-itself?
no there is no thinker-in-itself...
do you think about the thinker (another person who you believe is thinking) as not being a thing-in-itself?
no, there is no thinker-in-itself...

I think therefore I-AM.
The "I-AM" is claimed by many to the thinker-in-itself.
To the theist, the I-AM, the thinker-in-itself is an independent entity that will survive physical death which will either go the heaven [if believer] or Hell [if non-believer or an forgivable sinner].

What is really going on with "I think therefore I-AM" is;
I [the thinker] thinks of 'therefore I-AM [thinker-in-itself]',
As such the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker.

The 'I-Think' that is thinking can be verified and justified empirically by the "I-think' itself based on its own experience which is empirical and externally by others and science as a human being that think with its "I-Think" self.

The "I-AM" as the thinker-in-itself is merely a thought and to think it is real is illusory.
Theists reify the illusory "I-AM' -thinker-in-itself as an independent soul that will survive physical death to either heaven or hell.

Re What is Fact,
People like PH, the situation is as follows;

PH is the experiencer of something, but his "I think" thinks there is a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself.
What I am saying is, the fact-in-itself or thing-in-itself is merely a thought by his I-think, it is never a real thing that can be verified nor justified empirically.

What is the more real fact is the 'experiencer-experiencing-of-something' which in totality is the fact.
It is not merely the thing-experienced is the fact, the real fact is the totality of experiencer-experiencing-of-something'. In a way, this is a subjective fact.

In this case, for something-X, say an apple,
in reference to humanity there would be > 8 billion different [experiencer-experiencing-of-something]s.
To have a shared common fact, we put those experiences [or a sample of it] through a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most reliable FSK is the science-FSK, which enable a scientific fact.

What is critical to note, this scientific fact is not a scientific-fact-in-itself because the scientific FSK inevitably is grounded upon human conditions.

What is a scientific fact is the whole "experiencer-experiencing-of-something plus conditioned upon the scientific FSK" wherein those who are not the specific scientists doing the experiment are in the process of exercising trust the scientific facts are indeed facts.

This scientific-fact as conditioned upon the scientific FSK is objective because it is not dependent on any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment but conditioned upon the collective-of-subjects.

Thereafter whatever is known or described is not the whole scientific-fact per se.