Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

It is impossible for "things that just are the case" to exists as things-in-themselves...

First there is no fixed mind-independent reality.
Reality is always changing in relation to the human realization of reality.
There is no mind independent reality-as-it-is...

The antirealist [Kantian as Empirical Realists] do claim that there is human-independent reality 'out there'...

Erm. This is a contradiction.

1 There is no human-independent reality 'out there'.
2 There is a human-independent reality 'out there'.

And the rider that antirealists don't maintain the existence of a human-independent reality as an ideology is bs.

1. There is a human-independent reality 'out there', in the Empirical Realist sense

...but this is an illusion, because...

2. There is no human-independent reality 'out there', in the Ultimate Transcendental Idealism sense.

The above are at the same time, but in different senses,
therefore there is no contradiction [as defined above].

1 So, there's no contradiction, because the human-independent reality in 1 is fake - an illusion. Nice one.

2 Like all forms of idealism, Kant's transcendental version is a joke. Here's one description:

'Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them.'

But this is barely disguised mysticism or magical thinking. And you found your anti-realism on the reality of the human self, which is a transcendental ego. Oh-kay.

[Immanuel Can]

Why am I wasting time even talking with you? Never mind...that's a question for me, and I'm about to answer it.

Are you sure?

Now? Very. I'm going to do something much more useful now, like bathing my cat.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't happen to believe in a block universe; like you, I think causality is a thing. The point is that science would not look any different in a block universe, nor an idealist universe, nor a simulation, nor if we were Boltzmann brains, nor any other underdetermined hypothesis you fancy.

I don't "fancy" any of those. I prefer realism. And apparently, so do you; like me, you believe in the obvious fact of causality. Any evasion of that obvious fact, as I'm sure you realize, takes a far more elaborate and far less empirical kind of postulating, a theorizing without facts.

I think we're less than wise to be unduly impressed by things that fail to reflect any of the known facts in the universe, at least until they summon some contrary facts of their own. And when the theory undermines things like science and rationality itself, I think we're on very good ground for dismissing it as a meaningless speculation, rather than on pulling down the whole edifice of knowledge in order to bow at its speculative shrine, don't you?

The point about facts is that we give them speculative meanings, which Polanyi understood.

Hmmm...not quite. Our meanings are not "speculative" but rather "probabilistic." We aim at the best theory we can generate from the empirical facts available to us, keeping in mind that even those theories can be modified if new data appear. But we certainly don't throw over empirical data for speculative theorizing that has no data. That would be unwise in the extreme. And Polanyi did not back any such move.

It is a fact for instance, that Piltdown Man was a fraud. To you this means all of human evolution is a fraud.

No, no...be fair. That's nothing I've ever said. And in point of fact, that's not a conclusion I have every drawn from that one incident, though I think we have a multitude of reasons to be skeptical of the "human evolution" idea. Rather, what I draw from the PM fraud is a variety of other lessons. I'll be frank about some of them now, if I may.

One is that what we are sold as "the Science" can be a lie. Not always is, but can be. I remember being instructed in school that Piltdown was a fact, and that men descended from apes. Not only was this represented in pseudo-scientific charts and textbook pictures, but public "educational" television, museum dioramas, coffee mugs and t-shirts...it was a universal meme in pop culture, as well as a vigorously defended scientific "orthodoxy." And all that bluster amounted to nothing but a fraud.

That's concerning. It suggests that "scientific orthodoxy" is much more susceptible to political manipulation than we would like to think it is. That the entire field can be corrupted in this way, and that gross lies are sometimes peddled back to the public as "the Science" should not only be a concern to people of faith, but also to anybody whose love for truth or real science is genuine. Piltdown Man is a cautionary tale against pseudo-scientific authoritarianism.

But another lesson would be this: that somebody (and we shall leave that vague, because it's actual "many-bodies") has a powerful interest in advancing a theory of human evolution that has nothing to do with truth or science. It has to do with the metaphysical consequences of having a doctrinaire position that convinces people that there is no Creator required to explain human life, nature and existence. And if there are motives other than finding truth that are driving "the Science" as it arrives in the public imagination, then that is of grave concern to all of us.

That's not an idle concern, either. Without reopening the COVID issue, for example, we note that people are no longer wearing masks, social distancing, taking experimental injections, carrying medical passports, closed schools, shops and churches, people being denied access to their elderly loved ones, people being harassed into their homes by law officers, being fired from their jobs...and that things once sold to us as "vaccines" are now banned. Yet again, we were told "the Science" said we had to do all that. And now we all see it was a lie, again. If it were not, why have the "Scientific" authorities relented, and allowed the rebuilding of all the social procedures that we followed prior to the "COVID plague"? COVID still exists.

Likewise, the monkey-to-man theory has collapsed not merely on the case of Piltdown Man, but also Java Man (a gibbon), Neanderthal (a person with rickets), Nebraska Man (tooth of an extinct pig), and the famed "Lucy" skeleton (compiled from fragments found a mile a way and 200 feet different in strata). But as in the case of the PM fraud, these embarassing failures of the old theory are not made public with anything even remotely close to the vigour with which the monkey-to-man theory was promoted...and the public remains oblivious of just how bad the failure of the "human evolution" nonsense really was.

In a way, that's understandable. What scientist is going to want to get caught being part of such a gross public fraud? So they shuffle their failures off the scene quietly...and then trumpet some revised version of the same theory, or just pretend the mistake never happened...and most of the public has almost no means to discover the truth. So the reputation of "Evolutionary Science" marches on, unimpeded by public awareness of the fraudulent nature of the whole "discipline."

Something's severely "rotten in Denmark," to quote Hamlet. When somebody says, "it's Scientific," we need to employ a judicious measure of skepticism that their evoking of that word may be inauthentic and politicized. Regrettably, that happens. And Piltdown Man is but one case among many where it has.

[phyllo]

2 + 2 = 4 is only mathematically true, i.e. contingent within the rules and axioms of mathematics.
It is not real in the real-sense, i.e. of which scientific reality is the most credible and objective.

Demonstrate to me empirically 2 + 4 = 4 is absolutely true regardless of conditions and humans.
If you take 1 piece of sand plus another piece of sand that is equal to two pieces of sand,
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 pieces of sand, i.e. 1+1=2 which is ONLY mathematically true and within common sense as agreed by humans.
but in other senses,
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 pieces of sand cannot be absolute because
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 molecules of silicon dioxide, or SiO2
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 clusters of Silicon and Oxygen atoms
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = I clusters of Silicon & Oxygen & other atoms in the air.
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 1 'soup' of particles like this where there is no fixed quantity of particles or waves.

2 cats + 2 cats = 4 cats is true
But
2 cats + 2 oranges = 4 cats is false
2 cats + 2 oranges = 4 oranges is false

So the validity of the math depends on the context.

And there has to be agreement between people that they are counting cats or oranges. There has to be a agreement on the definition of the word and whether a physical object can be labelled with that word.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't happen to believe in a block universe; like you, I think causality is a thing. The point is that science would not look any different in a block universe, nor an idealist universe, nor a simulation, nor if we were Boltzmann brains, nor any other underdetermined hypothesis you fancy.

I don't "fancy" any of those.

I mean fancy as in imagine; there's no suggestion you might like any of them.

I prefer realism. And apparently, so do you; like me, you believe in the obvious fact of causality.

Well, I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events.

Any evasion of that obvious fact, as I'm sure you realize, takes a far more elaborate and far less empirical kind of postulating, a theorizing without facts.

That's analytic philosophy in a nutshell, but if it's ontological parsimony you're after, you can't really beat idealism. Descartes was right: the only thing that is certain is that there is thought and, as Berkeley in particular demonstrated, you can do an empirical kind of postulating without any mechanical events.

I think we're less than wise to be unduly impressed by things that fail to reflect any of the known facts in the universe, at least until they summon some contrary facts of their own.

What dilettantes and partisans fail to understand is that exactly the same facts support an unlimited variety of hypotheses.

And when the theory undermines things like science and rationality itself, I think we're on very good ground for dismissing it as a meaningless speculation, rather than on pulling down the whole edifice of knowledge in order to bow at its speculative shrine, don't you?

I do. Why then do you bow at a speculative shrine?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Erm. This is a contradiction.

1 There is no human-independent reality 'out there'.
2 There is a human-independent reality 'out there'.

And the rider that antirealists don't maintain the existence of a human-independent reality as an ideology is bs.

1. There is a human-independent reality 'out there', in the Empirical Realist sense

...but this is an illusion, because...

2. There is no human-independent reality 'out there', in the Ultimate Transcendental Idealism sense.

The above are at the same time, but in different senses,
therefore there is no contradiction [as defined above].

1 So, there's no contradiction, because the human-independent reality in 1 is fake - an illusion. Nice one.

The human independent reality in 1 is fake & illusory when it is claimed [by you and p-realists] as absolutely and a dogmatic ideology.

2 Like all forms of idealism, Kant's transcendental version is a joke. Here's one description:

'Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them.'

But this is barely disguised mysticism or magical thinking. And you found your anti-realism on the reality of the human self, which is a transcendental ego. Oh-kay.

That is from Britannica, which of course is very general and in this case the term 'construct' is very misleading in relation to Kant's CPR.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/transc ... l-idealism

btw, Kant is is recognized as one of the Greatest of ALL Time Western philosophers.
To condemn Kant "his is barely disguised mysticism or magical thinking" merely insults your own intelligence and intellectual integrity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

2 + 2 = 4 is only mathematically true, i.e. contingent within the rules and axioms of mathematics.
It is not real in the real-sense, i.e. of which scientific reality is the most credible and objective.

Demonstrate to me empirically 2 + 4 = 4 is absolutely true regardless of conditions and humans.
If you take 1 piece of sand plus another piece of sand that is equal to two pieces of sand,
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 pieces of sand, i.e. 1+1=2 which is ONLY mathematically true and within common sense as agreed by humans.
but in other senses,
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 pieces of sand cannot be absolute because
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 molecules of silicon dioxide, or SiO2
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 clusters of Silicon and Oxygen atoms
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = I clusters of Silicon & Oxygen & other atoms in the air.
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 1 'soup' of particles like this where there is no fixed quantity of particles or waves.

2 cats + 2 cats = 4 cats is true
But
2 cats + 2 oranges = 4 cats is false
2 cats + 2 oranges = 4 oranges is false

So the validity of the math depends on the context.

And there has to be agreement between people that they are counting cats or oranges. There has to be a agreement on the definition of the word and whether a physical object can be labelled with that word.

Yes, context is critical when rigor is necessary when complex issues [philosophical] are involved as in this case.

2 cats + 2 cats = 4 cats is true if and only if when qualified in the following human-based contexts;
-common sense
-conventional
-science biology
-arithmetic or mathematical
-linguistic sense

My point is "2 cats + 2 cats = 4 cats is true" cannot be taken as absolutely independent and regardless of the human factor.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events.

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Any evasion of that obvious fact, as I'm sure you realize, takes a far more elaborate and far less empirical kind of postulating, a theorizing without facts.

That's analytic philosophy in a nutshell

That's a little unkind to analytic philosophers. They're not pure speculators: at least they work on analyzing given concepts. That's more than one can say for the speculative-cosmology set.

I think we're less than wise to be unduly impressed by things that fail to reflect any of the known facts in the universe, at least until they summon some contrary facts of their own.

What dilettantes and partisans fail to understand is that exactly the same facts support an unlimited variety of hypotheses.

That seems excessive. I think a more accurate claim might be that facts often support a range of possible interpretations. But it's not the case that a set of facts simply supports ANY hypothesis. Reality puts constraints and limits on that. Were it not so, total relativism would apply, and nobody would know anything at all.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events.

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Well look, the fact that I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events, doesn't mean that it is. Having nothing invested in an iron age creation story, I am less committed to an eternal god creating time, space and matter out of nothing.

Any evasion of that obvious fact, as I'm sure you realize, takes a far more elaborate and far less empirical kind of postulating, a theorizing without facts.

That's analytic philosophy in a nutshell

That's a little unkind to analytic philosophers. They're not pure speculators: at least they work on analyzing given concepts. That's more than one can say for the speculative-cosmology set.

Clearly you are missing the point that many of the speculative cosmology set are working with much more detailed empirical data than you or I. Any speculative cosmology you are likely to have heard of is probably predicated on better information than you have. Flat earthers aside, they're not all cranks pulling fantasies from their arses.

I think we're less than wise to be unduly impressed by things that fail to reflect any of the known facts in the universe, at least until they summon some contrary facts of their own.

What dilettantes and partisans fail to understand is that exactly the same facts support an unlimited variety of hypotheses.

That seems excessive. I think a more accurate claim might be that facts often support a range of possible interpretations. But it's not the case that a set of facts simply supports ANY hypothesis. Reality puts constraints and limits on that.

Again you are missing the point; a set of facts supports any hypothesis that is consistent with those facts. Whatever reality is, there is no evidence it puts constraints and limits on creativity.

Were it not so, total relativism would apply, and nobody would know anything at all.

Well, if analytic philosophy has shown us anything, it is, to paraphrase Parmenides and Descartes, there are phenomena. Anything we know about reality beyond that is theory laden, so we can know all sorts of things in context, but only one we know absolutely.

[attofishpi]

Well, I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events.

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Infinite regress is only logically impossible because as we minds of logic cannot comprehend of a place of true CHAOS..no logic.

That indeed, randomness eventually formed causality.

[Peter Holmes]

Mathematics is a language. Only Platonists think mathematical objects are real.

And a logic deals with language, not a reality outside language.

So a cosmological argument from mathematics or logic is unsound.

Mistaking what we say for the way things are is the beginning of philosophical confusion. Of philosophy itself.

[Will Bouwman]

Precisely.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events.

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Well look, the fact that I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events, doesn't mean that it is.

No, nothing is absolute, of course. We're talking about human knowledge, after all. It just means that that is the overwhelmingly plausible explanation, based on all the empirical data, and no other theory has anything close to the empirical data to make it reasonable to suppose at all. But theories based on nothing will continue, of course; and eventually, some of them may even have some data behind them. But that, too, is highly speculative. So for now, go with what you know, I'd say.

That's analytic philosophy in a nutshell

That's a little unkind to analytic philosophers. They're not pure speculators: at least they work on analyzing given concepts. That's more than one can say for the speculative-cosmology set.

Clearly you are missing the point that many of the speculative cosmology set are working with much more detailed empirical data than you or I.

Not "empirical data," in most cases, but rather theorizing. For example, there's no data for the famed "Multiverse Hypothesis" not only has no data for it, but definitionally, cannot ever have data, since the arrival of any empirical data would definitionally make the "multiverse" just an extended part of THIS universe, and not a DIFFERENT universe at all.

What dilettantes and partisans fail to understand is that exactly the same facts support an unlimited variety of hypotheses.

That seems excessive. I think a more accurate claim might be that facts often support a range of possible interpretations. But it's not the case that a set of facts simply supports ANY hypothesis. Reality puts constraints and limits on that.

Again you are missing the point; a set of facts supports any hypothesis that is consistent with those facts.

Then I'm not missing the point. What was missing was that conditioning phrase, "consistent with those facts." But you've now supplied it. And that means that all that is "inconsistent with those facts" is outside the range of reasonable hypothesizing, which means reality has constrained us against choosing such an interpretation.

...we can know all sorts of things in context, but only one we know absolutely.

You mean the "Cogito"? Well, I think so...but not everybody wants to concede even that. Some would rather say, for example, that we don't know that "I am," but rather only that "some thinking entity is thinking." But I think that gripe would be reductional and a bit silly, so I'm happy to concede the Cogito, as you are, apparently.

However, absolute certainty is, if I can say, overrated. What I mean is that the fact that you and I do not have absolute knowledge about everything is not only not tragic but actually rather appropriately humbling. Human knowledge is really probabilistic: we are inevitably forced to go with the best hypotheses we have, in light of what empirical and experiential data we possess at a given moment. In other words, human beings are intrinsically creatures-with-faith; and that faith can be founded on low-probability guesses, which would be irrational and bad, or very high-probability calculations which would be more rational and better, but whichever it is, it's all faith rather than absolute knowledge.

That doesn't mean that knowledge or certainty are just "up for grabs." There are better and worse hypotheses, and better and worse data, of course; and a wise man devotes himself to the better hypotheses and the data, not to gratuitous trust. But at the end of the day, we human beings are all forced to "throw ourselves," in a manner of speaking, upon a belief in things we cannot absolutely secure to ourselves. And that's exactly how it should be, really. We all need faith. We cannot avoid it. There are only those who know they are creatures living by faith, and those who refuse to accept that they are; but we all are, anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events.

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Infinite regress is only logically impossible because as we minds of logic cannot comprehend of a place of true CHAOS..no logic.

No, it's impossible to those who trust in the existence of causality. That is, those who believe in science, or in the experience of their own eyes, as they see it every day, and the practice of cause-and-effect they experience daily.

[Immanuel Can]

Mathematics is a language. Only Platonists think mathematical objects are real.

Nobody said "Mathematical objects are real," so you'll have to take that up with somebody who thinks it. What was said was simply that mathematics has a highly-applicable correspondence to the real world (most apparent in things like physics, chemistry and engineering, for example, but true in all disciplines, really, right down to carpentry and sheep-herding). Maths tell us in symbolic language about quantities and phenomena in real life...like tension stresses in materials or numbers of sheep. And it's darn reliable.

And a logic deals with language, not a reality outside language.

False dichotomy. Deductive logic deals with propositions, which are statements about the empirical world.

So a cosmological argument from mathematics or logic is unsound.

Well, that's a bad conclusion, but that's certainly expectable from such erroneous and simplistic premises. It could hardly be otherwise.