What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Oh, look. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, my, my. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, hey, just to say. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of...KNOWLEDGE...'

So, let's see. The claim that what we call a fact exists within a framework and system of KNOWLEDGE is false. Because. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

What else can we say? I know, let's find a definition of what, generally speaking, constitutes a fact.

And here I'd wonder what anyone means by fact. Do they mean propositions about what is real/true or do they mean facets of reality, outside of language? Or something else.

[Peter Holmes]

Oh, look. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, my, my. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, hey, just to say. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of...KNOWLEDGE...'

So, let's see. The claim that what we call a fact exists within a framework and system of KNOWLEDGE is false. Because. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

What else can we say? I know, let's find a definition of what, generally speaking, constitutes a fact.

And here I'd wonder what anyone means by fact. Do they mean propositions about what is real/true or do they mean facets of reality, outside of language? Or something else.

Quite. That's my point. But here's what a dictionary says we mean: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true' - only the last of which disjunction can be a proposition - more precisely, a factual assertion with a truth-value. The word fact has two completely different uses.

So talk about 'truths of reality' can be deeply confusing. Outside language, there are no truths in reality, just as there are no falsehoods. It's a fundamental confusion.

[Iwannaplato]

Quite. That's my point. But here's what a dictionary says we mean: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true' - only the last of which disjunction can be a proposition - more precisely, a factual assertion with a truth-value. The word fact has two completely different uses.

I believe that's the definition, but here's my problem.

Chairs are things.
Yet.....
That chair is a fact.
Chairs are facts.
Jim's dog is a fact.
The rain was a fact yesterday.
My wife is a fact. My wife's knee is a fact. My wife's car is a fact.

Those don't make sense to me.

That chair exists...fine
Chairs exist or are real....fine.
It's a fact that Jim has a dog....fine.
That it rained yesterday is a fact...fine.
That I'm married is a fact. That my wife exists is a fact. That my wife (still) has two knees is a fact. That my wife has a car...those four are fine.

IOW when we are referring to an idea we consider cold, dead true. Referring to an idea.

I just wouldn't use 'fact' as that defnition does. And I don't really hear people using it that way. I hear them often say it's a fact, which means whatever they said before is true. Or I see books of facts: filled with assertions, often strange things that exist or happened are described. Or factual knowledge 'King Henry the VII killed' contrasted with actually understanding stuff and procedural knowledge. Again, having a bunch of true assertions in your head.

I do see other uses in my Webster's dictionary definition. But those actually seem rarer to me, even though they are listed first. They also seem either colloquial (space exploration is now a fact) and part of a phrase) or jargony (demonstrate the fact of damage).

I'd recommend coming up with two distinct terms along the lines of fact (assertions considered true about what happened or is) and what I have been calling facets of reality. I am not saying 'facets of reality' is perfect, nor do I think a la Skepdick's likely objection that this distinction is utterly non-controversial. But I gotta say for a long time it's seemed to me there is conflation all over the place. Toss in the VA is a not a native speaker and I could imagine ten pages go by where you actually don't even disagree with each other over something but are arguing.

[Skepdick]

Quite. That's my point. But here's what a dictionary says we mean: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true' - only the last of which disjunction can be a proposition - more precisely, a factual assertion with a truth-value. The word fact has two completely different uses.

So talk about 'truths of reality' can be deeply confusing. Outside language, there are no truths in reality, just as there are no falsehoods. It's a fundamental confusion.

So you've changed your mind now?

Use no longer determines meaning - a dictionary determines meaning.

This is all confusing to me because I have no idea what you mean by the word "mean" - how are you using it?

I checked the dictionary and it's of absolutely no help - the definition is circular.

meaning noun what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

If use is meaning then a dictionary definitin caonnot contain ANY meaning! Dictionaries are incapable of using words!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Oh, look. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, my, my. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

And, hey, just to say. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of...KNOWLEDGE...'

So, let's see. The claim that what we call a fact exists within a framework and system of KNOWLEDGE is false. Because. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

What else can we say? I know, let's find a definition of what, generally speaking, constitutes a fact.

Strawmaning again! via selecting re referencing;

Note I quoted what is fact i.e.
I have quoted this a "million" times.

A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

In the above case, [GENERALLY SPEAKING] it is implied, the said facts are independent of individual[s] belief and of knowledge and opinion.
Since this issue is highly contentious we need to be rigoristic to go into the specific details.

My principle is;
All facts, truths and knowledge [cognition in this case] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
A human-based FSK is the shared facts, truths and knowledge between members of a human-based FSK with a large group of people sharing the same interests.
Because of a shared facts and conditioned within a FSK, they are objective facts, i.e. independent of individual[s]' belief and of knowledge and opinion.

That is why I always insisted it is not because you father, mother or you said so, but rather its is the human-based FSK that said so.
E.g. that 'water is H20' because the science-chemistry FSK said so.

And don't forget the specific human-based FSK is conditioned upon all elements [deterministically] way back to the Big Bang.

And, hey, just to say. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of...KNOWLEDGE...'
So, let's see. The claim that what we call a fact exists within a framework and system of KNOWLEDGE is false. Because. 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

Again 'GENERALLY SPEAKING' you want to merely insist on this?
I have stated the emergence facts from a FSK comprised of a two stages processes, i.e.
1. the realization and emergence of the fact stage;
2. the perception, known and describing the facts stage.

I have mentioned this many times, that I used FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] is a simplified version of the above two stages process.
Stage I is part of a Framework and System of Reality [FSR].
As such, that you know [have knowledge] 'water is H20' is independent of the FSK-Fact as emerging from stage 1 of the human-based science -chemistry FSK [incl. FSR].

What else can we say? I know, let's find a definition of what, generally speaking, constitutes a fact.

I have already argued your 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

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

I suggest you deal with above 2 critical arguments.
You have not demonstrated your independent facts which is a feature of reality exist as real; you merely blabber it is just-is, being-so, that is the case, blah, blah...

[Veritas Aequitas]

But here's what a dictionary says we mean: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true' - only the last of which disjunction can be a proposition - more precisely, a factual assertion with a truth-value. The word fact has two completely different uses.

So talk about 'truths of reality' can be deeply confusing. Outside language, there are no truths in reality, just as there are no falsehoods. It's a fundamental confusion.

Dictionary meanings are only useful as a preliminary if all parties agree to what is defined in the dictionary.

Note the dictionary meanings of 'what is fact'..
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

• something that actually exists; reality; truth:
  Your fears have no basis in fact.
  something known to exist or to have happened:
  Space travel is now a fact.
  a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
  Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
  something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
  The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

But with a contentious philosophical issue, and where there are disagreements over the terms us, then we have to more rigoristic to get into the depths and details.

The reality is in all the above definitions of 'what is fact', it is inevitable human beings are involved. These human beings are conditioned upon grounds that date back to 13 billion years ago.
As such, to be realistic on what is fact, we cannot ignored this embedded organic and physical history that date back to 13 billion years ago. But you keep ignorant this human-based science cosmological fact.

In one perspective, there could be >8 billion specific realizations of 'what is fact' within reality.
In practice, what happens is, groups of humans inter-influence each other's emergence and realization of reality, thus we have various FSKs [incl. FSR] with different credibility and reliability.

So, whatever is the facts, truths, knowledge, they are all conditioned upon a human-based FSK - this is the reality.
At present the human-based scientific FSK is the most reliable and credible.
Your linguistic-FSK has low reliability and credibility to represent truths.

Thus your assumption that there is a human-independent objective reality existing out-there is an illusion.
I have already argued upon that. See post above re the links to the arguments.
Your issue is very psychological, i.e. being dogmatic to a primal proto evolutionary default of human-external-ness.

[Skepdick]

Quite. That's my point. But here's what a dictionary says we mean: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true' - only the last of which disjunction can be a proposition - more precisely, a factual assertion with a truth-value. The word fact has two completely different uses.

I believe that's the definition, but here's my problem.

Chairs are things.
Yet.....
That chair is a fact.
Chairs are facts.
Jim's dog is a fact.
The rain was a fact yesterday.
My wife is a fact. My wife's knee is a fact. My wife's car is a fact.

Those don't make sense to me.

That chair exists...fine
Chairs exist or are real....fine.
It's a fact that Jim has a dog....fine.
That it rained yesterday is a fact...fine.
That I'm married is a fact. That my wife exists is a fact. That my wife (still) has two knees is a fact. That my wife has a car...those four are fine.

IOW when we are referring to an idea we consider cold, dead true. Referring to an idea.

I just wouldn't use 'fact' as that defnition does. And I don't really hear people using it that way. I hear them often say it's a fact, which means whatever they said before is true. Or I see books of facts: filled with assertions, often strange things that exist or happened are described. Or factual knowledge 'King Henry the VII killed' contrasted with actually understanding stuff and procedural knowledge. Again, having a bunch of true assertions in your head.

I do see other uses in my Webster's dictionary definition. But those actually seem rarer to me, even though they are listed first. They also seem either colloquial (space exploration is now a fact) and part of a phrase) or jargony (demonstrate the fact of damage).

I'd recommend coming up with two distinct terms along the lines of fact (assertions considered true about what happened or is) and what I have been calling facets of reality. I am not saying 'facets of reality' is perfect, nor do I think a la Skepdick's likely objection that this distinction is utterly non-controversial. But I gotta say for a long time it's seemed to me there is conflation all over the place. Toss in the VA is a not a native speaker and I could imagine ten pages go by where you actually don't even disagree with each other over something but are arguing.

The whole idea that philosophy is about the use of language is silly and frivolous.

One cannot speak about the use of language in general without focusing on use-cases of language in particular.

Walk into any room full of doctors, or astrophysicists, or bilogists and tell me why it is that you don't understand what's being spoken about despite them speaking English.

They have a specialized/particular use-case and their language has been shaped by it.

[Peter Holmes]

'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'

Yes, let's be rigorous. Notice it's not 'independent [from] an individual's belief, knowledge and opinion'.

There's no qualification or condition. And an opinion or belief held by everyone is still an opinion or belief. Something doesn't become a fact simply because many or all of us think it is.

That's a bandwagon fallacy, and a deeply irrational and unscientific idea. Consensus theories are demonstrably wrong, and sticking in 'intersubjective' makes no difference. (What other kind of consensus is there anyway?)

[Iwannaplato]

Why not approach objectivity in a practical sense, rather than a theoretical sense. (not suggesting this is correct, but perhaps it could shift the debate at bit)

Objectivity claims generally entail some process through which other people can check/test the claim.

So, how would VA convince others that a specific moral claim is objective?

What does he do, specificially and then what do they do in response?

We know from science some of the ways this is done related to claims about molluscs or superconductors at a certain temperature. The scientists share their hypothesis, protocols and results. Someone in Berlin can read this, get funding and try it out. And we can even present a very specific example of how a specific lab did exactly this around a specific claim within science.

That's not the only way we decided things are objective, but that's what I am getting at. Instead of staying at some timeless, check the meaning of words, why it must be (or must not be) possible for moral claim X to be objective, lay out the process through which a specific moral claim can be checked.

So, what does VA see as the process through which he uses to give others the tools to check his conclusions? And how does he see it as convincing?

VA makes it clear, for the most part, that his moral claims are not around rules. It seems, for example, that in relation to empathy his moral claims are not that we need rules for behavior, but rather that we enhance our empathetic tendencies.

So, how does a group of people in Canada check his work? What protocol do they use? Even if it is not a scientific protocol, there ought to be some process for determining if VA is correct.

And presumably this would include some way to check that enhancing empathy is better than enhancing other tendencies in our neuronal structures. And what the criteria are for that 'better than' and how that is objective. What is the protocol or argument as protocoal that demonstrates that we should enhance mirror neuronal patterns and not aggressive neuronal patterns?

What is the message to the group in Canada? What steps do they take to check his work in concrete practical terms?

[Peter Holmes]

Quite. That's my point. But here's what a dictionary says we mean: 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true' - only the last of which disjunction can be a proposition - more precisely, a factual assertion with a truth-value. The word fact has two completely different uses.

I believe that's the definition, but here's my problem.

Chairs are things.
Yet.....
That chair is a fact.
Chairs are facts.
Jim's dog is a fact.
The rain was a fact yesterday.
My wife is a fact. My wife's knee is a fact. My wife's car is a fact.

Those don't make sense to me.

That chair exists...fine
Chairs exist or are real....fine.
It's a fact that Jim has a dog....fine.
That it rained yesterday is a fact...fine.
That I'm married is a fact. That my wife exists is a fact. That my wife (still) has two knees is a fact. That my wife has a car...those four are fine.

IOW when we are referring to an idea we consider cold, dead true. Referring to an idea.

I just wouldn't use 'fact' as that defnition does. And I don't really hear people using it that way. I hear them often say it's a fact, which means whatever they said before is true. Or I see books of facts: filled with assertions, often strange things that exist or happened are described. Or factual knowledge 'King Henry the VII killed' contrasted with actually understanding stuff and procedural knowledge. Again, having a bunch of true assertions in your head.

I do see other uses in my Webster's dictionary definition. But those actually seem rarer to me, even though they are listed first. They also seem either colloquial (space exploration is now a fact) and part of a phrase) or jargony (demonstrate the fact of damage).

I'd recommend coming up with two distinct terms along the lines of fact (assertions considered true about what happened or is) and what I have been calling facets of reality. I am not saying 'facets of reality' is perfect, nor do I think a la Skepdick's likely objection that this distinction is utterly non-controversial. But I gotta say for a long time it's seemed to me there is conflation all over the place. Toss in the VA is a not a native speaker and I could imagine ten pages go by where you actually don't even disagree with each other over something but are arguing.

Okay - and agreed. I think recognising that there are two completely different uses for the word fact is the starting point: feature (facet) of reality that is or was the case; true description of such a feature (facet) of reality.

When we ask 'what are the facts?', or say 'we don't know all the facts', we're not talking about true factual assertions. We're talking about features (facets) of reality. But then when we list those facts, we produce descriptions - true factual assertions - as though these two kinds of fact are identical - mistaking what we say for the way things are.

My larger point is that the whole so-called anti-realist confusion comes from 1 mistaking the description for the described, then 2 objecting to the claim that any one description is the described, and 3 concluding that there is no described outside a description.

[Skepdick]

Okay - and agreed. I think recognising that there are two completely different uses for the word fact is the starting point: feature (facet) of reality that is or was the case; true description of such a feature (facet) of reality.

When we ask 'what are the facts?', or say 'we don't know all the facts', we're not talking about true factual assertions. We're talking about features (facets) of reality. But then when we list those facts, we produce descriptions - true factual assertions - as though these two kinds of fact are identical - mistaking what we say for the way things are.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is incapable of escaping the trap of his own circular reasoning.

There aren't just two completely different uses for the word fact. There are multitude of completely different uses for the word use.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is attempting to account for the use of language using language. Only idiots engage in such a circular language game.

My larger point is that the whole so-called anti-realist confusion comes from 1 mistaking the description for the described, then 2 objecting to the claim that any one description is the described, and 3 concluding that there is no described outside a description.

Anti-realism is not the rejection of reality - it's the rejection of realism.

The rejection that what we call truth; and true (which includes facts and factual assertions) is mind-independent. The end.

How could it be? Language is mind dependent and all factual assertions are linguistic.

[Iwannaplato]

My larger point is that the whole so-called anti-realist confusion comes from 1 mistaking the description for the described, then 2 objecting to the claim that any one description is the described, and 3 concluding that there is no described outside a description.

There are a number of anti-realisms, but more common, I think, than 'no described outside a description' would be 'no particular described without a perception' and 'no singular entity/process perceived by a variety of perceivers'. There are also, within science, antirealism that distinguish between observables and non-observables and consider models and facts about the latter as mere pragmatic placeholders - ideas to help us imagine. There's quite an interesting debate about that issue, with both sides making interesting points, I think.

There are other anti-realism, and these tend to be around 'mind-independence' rather than 'description independence'.

[Skepdick]

There are other anti-realism, and these tend to be around 'mind-independence' rather than 'description independence'.

Descriptions depend on minds so you can't decouple these concerns.

[Peter Holmes]

My larger point is that the whole so-called anti-realist confusion comes from 1 mistaking the description for the described, then 2 objecting to the claim that any one description is the described, and 3 concluding that there is no described outside a description.

There are a number of anti-realisms, but more common, I think, than 'no described outside a description' would be 'no particular described without a perception' and 'no singular entity/process perceived by a variety of perceivers'.

That's interesting - but I think the same fallacious conclusion results: esse est percipi - and empiricist skepticism. Point is: 'only the perceived, known and described can be be perceived, known and described - and beyond that is speculation and doubt.' (True and inconsequential.)

There are also, within science, antirealism[s] that distinguish between observables and non-observables and consider models and facts about the latter as mere pragmatic placeholders - ideas to help us imagine. There's quite an interesting debate about that issue, with both sides making interesting points, I think.

Fair enough. But I'd question the use of 'fact' to mean 'placeholder' here. If a model posits an unobservable thing, that's no reason to call the model 'anti-realist'. All the way down, it's mistaking the description for the described. Question: is there any reason to think the described is not real?

There are other anti-realism[s], and these tend to be around 'mind-independence' rather than 'description independence'.

Okay, but if there's no mind, then mind-dependence / mind-independence is an incoherent distinction. And there's no evidence for the existence of mind or the mind as a different, non-physical substance. It's a fiction - an invention - like all abstract or non-physical things.

[Skepdick]

All the way down, it's mistaking the description for the described. Question: is there any reason to think the described is not real? Question: is there any reason to think the described is not real?

I can't even!

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes confuses the description for the described right after warning about the very mistake.

Nothing changes about the described when we replace "real" for "not real" in the description.
Nothing changes about the described when we replace "not real" for "real" in the description.

Realist terminology has no effect on reality - therefore realist terminology is NOT real.