Truthmaker Maximalism is established

[PeteOlcott]

Thus my point, what is critical to truth and reality is the Framework and System, not the language.
As for morality we need a credible and objective human-based moral framework that will prevent all sort of evil.

Let me be much more specific.
A finite string expression of language only acquires the semantic property of
Boolean True when:
(a) There exists a sequence of truth preserving operations from
finite strings known to have the semantic property of Boolean True.

(b) The finite string expression of language is stipulated to have the semantic
property of Boolean True when assigning semantic meaning to otherwise
totally meaningless finite strings.

Somehow you are blind with the critical need of a specific framework and system in grounding truth and reality.

Unless humanity attains a correct measure of objective truth then
annihilation of life on Earth remains probable.

The $20 trillion fossil fuel industry had gotten away with climate change
denial because they can afford to hire very convincing liars.

Donald Trump has gotten way wit Nazi propaganda about election fraud.
Both of these things only because humans have no reliable measure of
objective truth.

As far as climate change goes I did not accept anyone's opinion and
did the science directly myself from scratch.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... able_facts

[Impenitent]

the democratic "squad" is aligning themselves with Hamas and openly protesting against the existence of Israel and Jews

not Trump

but the enlightened left has no time for truth

-Imp

[Consul]

Truthmaker theory is grounded on philosophical realism which itself is grounded on an illusion.

Philosophical realism ..– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

truthmaker theory is the thesis that "the truth of truthbearers depends on the existence of truthmakers".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthmaker_theory

With philosophical realism, it is;

truthmaker theory is the thesis that "the truth of truthbearers depends on the existence of truthmakers [that are absolutely mind-independent]".

From the philosophical antirealist [Kantian] perspective, truthmakers that are absolutely mind-independent cannot exist are really real absolutely* independent things, they are merely illusions if reified as real. * the term 'absolutely' is critical in this case.

No, truthmaker theory does not require that all truthmakers be (absolutely) mind-independent. Mental entities as truthmakers of psychological truths are obviously not mind-independent. Neither are social entities as truthmakers of sociological truths. There wouldn't be any social conventions, institutions, or organizations if there weren't beings with minds.

[Consul]

There is no absolute certainty with science and it is possible for the
scientific fact "{cats} <are> {animals}" to be changed in the future.

Note the case,
Pluto as one of the 9 planets which was changed to
Pluto is a dwarf planet, so there are only 8 planets in our solar system.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Over the history of science, many once seemingly secured scientific facts has been changed, revised or abandon upon new evidences.

The definition of concepts is up to our semantic decisions; but once a concept has a fixed meaning, it is no longer up to us whether a given object falls under it or not. Given the old definition of "planet'", there are nine planets in our solar system; and given the new one, there are eight ones. Of course, Pluto itself couldn't care less about whether or not it is classified as a planet. The semantic change of the concept <planet> didn't cause any physical change in that celestial body, and the number of celestial bodies didn't change either.

[PeteOlcott]

The definition of concepts is up to our semantic decisions; but once a concept has a fixed meaning, it is no longer up to us whether a given object falls under it or not. Given the old definition of "planet'", there are nine planets in our solar system; and given the new one, there are eight ones. Of course, Pluto itself couldn't care less about whether or not it is classified as a planet. The semantic change of the concept <planet> didn't cause any physical change in that celestial body, and the number of celestial bodies didn't change either.

Yes that is the way that these things actually work.

Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning} requires
a connection to this meaning and cannot be true without it.

Every expression of language that is true requires something making it true
or it is untrue.

Every expression of language that is false requires something making its
negation true or it is unfalse.

Truthmaker Maximalism defended GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA
https://philarchive.org/archive/RODTMD

The key rebuttal to Truthmaker Maximalism
M: This sentence has no truthmaker
Is simply not a bearer of truth because neither M nor ~M has a truthmaker.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let me be much more specific.
A finite string expression of language only acquires the semantic property of
Boolean True when:
(a) There exists a sequence of truth preserving operations from
finite strings known to have the semantic property of Boolean True.

(b) The finite string expression of language is stipulated to have the semantic
property of Boolean True when assigning semantic meaning to otherwise
totally meaningless finite strings.

Somehow you are blind with the critical need of a specific framework and system in grounding truth and reality.

Unless humanity attains a correct measure of objective truth then
annihilation of life on Earth remains probable.

The $20 trillion fossil fuel industry had gotten away with climate change
denial because they can afford to hire very convincing liars.

Donald Trump has gotten way wit Nazi propaganda about election fraud.
Both of these things only because humans have no reliable measure of
objective truth.

As far as climate change goes I did not accept anyone's opinion and
did the science directly myself from scratch.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... able_facts

You are on the wrong philosophical tract in saving the world.

Note Kant's vision and mission;

1. What can we know? [epistemology, knowledge and truth of reality and thyself]
2. What can we do: [Morality and Ethics]
3. What can we hope for? Perpetual Peace from 1 and 2.

What is critical in saving the human species from extermination is morality-proper not objective truth alone and your sort of ineffective truthmaker theory.

To establish and enable the workings to morality toward perpetual peace, it must be grounded on a human-based framework and system of morality.
I have covered this in >300 threads in the Ethical Theory Section.
viewforum.php?f=8&sid=2685738357ac4510c9df0ca2ca70b463

[Veritas Aequitas]

Truthmaker theory is grounded on philosophical realism which itself is grounded on an illusion.

Philosophical realism ..– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

truthmaker theory is the thesis that "the truth of truthbearers depends on the existence of truthmakers".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthmaker_theory

With philosophical realism, it is;

truthmaker theory is the thesis that "the truth of truthbearers depends on the existence of truthmakers [that are absolutely mind-independent]".

From the philosophical antirealist [Kantian] perspective, truthmakers that are absolutely mind-independent cannot exist are really real absolutely* independent things, they are merely illusions if reified as real. * the term 'absolutely' is critical in this case.

No, truthmaker theory does not require that all truthmakers be (absolutely) mind-independent. Mental entities as truthmakers of psychological truths are obviously not mind-independent. Neither are social entities as truthmakers of sociological truths. There wouldn't be any social conventions, institutions, or organizations if there weren't beings with minds.

I was referring to the above, IF it is based on Philosophical Realism which I presume the OP is based on.

Yes, 'truthmaker' are not absolutely mind-independent if they are grounded on philosophical antiRealism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no absolute certainty with science and it is possible for the
scientific fact "{cats} <are> {animals}" to be changed in the future.

Note the case,
Pluto as one of the 9 planets which was changed to
Pluto is a dwarf planet, so there are only 8 planets in our solar system.

• In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Over the history of science, many once seemingly secured scientific facts has been changed, revised or abandon upon new evidences.

The definition of concepts is up to our semantic decisions; but once a concept has a fixed meaning, it is no longer up to us whether a given object falls under it or not. Given the old definition of "planet'", there are nine planets in our solar system; and given the new one, there are eight ones. Of course, Pluto itself couldn't care less about whether or not it is classified as a planet. The semantic change of the concept <planet> didn't cause any physical change in that celestial body, and the number of celestial bodies didn't change either.

Yes, the 'definition' of a concepts is a semantic decisions, but no one can play God with how should a thing or event is to be defined.
But it is not an absolute semantic decision but rather grounded to a specific human based framework and system [FS].
In the above case, the specific FS is the science-cosmology FS with the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as the credible authority.

Any other FS can define 'what is a planet' is, e.g. the astrological FS could do so if the reject the science-cosmology FS' decision of what is a 'planet'.

The question is which FS is more credible and objective; it is generally accepted [there are objective grounds] the science-cosmology FS is more reliable that the astrological FS.

[PeteOlcott]

You are on the wrong philosophical tract in saving the world.

Note Kant's vision and mission;

1. What can we know? [epistemology, knowledge and truth of reality and thyself]
2. What can we do: [Morality and Ethics]
3. What can we hope for? Perpetual Peace from 1 and 2.

What is critical in saving the human species from extermination is morality-proper not objective truth alone and your sort of ineffective truthmaker theory.

To establish and enable the workings to morality toward perpetual peace, it must be grounded on a human-based framework and system of morality.
I have covered this in >300 threads in the Ethical Theory Section.
viewforum.php?f=8&sid=2685738357ac4510c9df0ca2ca70b463

We cannot possibly begin to get there when destroying the
planet is presumed to be good for the economy and good
for the economy is construed as good for humanity.

If morality is anchored in dangerous lies then it is a great evil.
Until we have an objective basis to distinguish dangerous lies
from truth the end of life on Earth seems probable and morality
has no sufficient basis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are on the wrong philosophical tract in saving the world.

Note Kant's vision and mission;

1. What can we know? [epistemology, knowledge and truth of reality and thyself]
2. What can we do: [Morality and Ethics]
3. What can we hope for? Perpetual Peace from 1 and 2.

What is critical in saving the human species from extermination is morality-proper not objective truth alone and your sort of ineffective truthmaker theory.

To establish and enable the workings to morality toward perpetual peace, it must be grounded on a human-based framework and system of morality.
I have covered this in >300 threads in the Ethical Theory Section.
viewforum.php?f=8&sid=2685738357ac4510c9df0ca2ca70b463

We cannot possibly begin to get there when destroying the
planet is presumed to be good for the economy and good
for the economy is construed as good for humanity.

If morality is anchored in dangerous lies then it is a great evil.
Until we have an objective basis to distinguish dangerous lies
from truth the end of life on Earth seems probable and morality
has no sufficient basis.

To establish the Morality-proper FS, we have to define what is morality.

'Morality is the management to eliminate and prevent evil to enable it related good to manifest'.
In this case, there is no room for morality-proper to include 'evil' that extent to exterminate the human species/
(That is morality is generally related to rights and wrongs if too flimsy.)

In the above we also have to have a specific definition for what is evil and it has to be objective and credible as defined within a moral-evil FS.
I have argued the scientific FS [at its best] is the most reliable, credible and objective correlate of reality and truth. So, it can be considered to be the gold standard indexed at 100/100. What other FS is more credible and objective?

So, the important point is to enable the morality-proper to be as near as possible to the science-FS [gold standard] in terms of credibility, truth and objectivity, say 80/100.

Just in case, IF you are relying on the theistic FS [i.e. you are a theist], its credibility and objectivity is 0.01% to the gold standard.

You keep stating, truthmaker, truth, truth, truth ..
how can you verify and justify your truth[s] are very objective to the extent it can save the human species from premature extinction?
It is just wishful thinking.

[PeteOlcott]

You keep stating, truthmaker, truth, truth, truth ..
how can you verify and justify your truth[s] are very objective to the extent it can save the human species from premature extinction?
It is just wishful thinking.

Are you pretty sure or totally certain that puppies are not fifteen story office buildings?
Without truth morality cannot exist. Morality is simple.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... uentialism

Once you have the best value system then morality becomes computable,
yet only if anchored in truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You keep stating, truthmaker, truth, truth, truth ..
how can you verify and justify your truth[s] are very objective to the extent it can save the human species from premature extinction?
It is just wishful thinking.

Are you pretty sure or totally certain that puppies are not fifteen story office buildings?

If I can get enough people to play the my 'language game' agree with me, then 'puppies' can be "fifteen story office buildings" i.e.



200 years ago, one could have asked,
Are you pretty sure or totally certain that 'gays' are 'homosexuals'?
Obviously it was not because 'gay' = "light-hearted and carefree" then

At present,
the majority are pretty sure or totally certain that 'gays' are 'homosexuals'!

The point is there is no absolute truth but whatever is objective truth is contingent upon a human-based framework and system based on consensus.
'Water is H20' is based on the intersubjective consensus within the human-based science-chemistry FS; this cover the description and the-described.

Without truth morality cannot exist. Morality is simple.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glos ... uentialism

Once you have the best value system then morality becomes computable,
yet only if anchored in truth.

You still cannot get the point?
Without a morality-proper framework, there are no objective moral truth.
For objective moral truth to be reliable and credible, its FS must be as near as possible to the gold standard.

You are very lost on this and do not seem to cognize the concept and imperative of the necessary framework and system to ground truth, reality and objectivity.

Can you confirm the idea of a framework and system is nonsensical or non-existent [it seems to you] and unnecessary, irrelevant?

[PeteOlcott]

You are very lost on this and do not seem to cognize the concept and imperative of the necessary framework and system to ground truth, reality and objectivity.

Can you confirm the idea of a framework and system is nonsensical or non-existent [it seems to you] and unnecessary, irrelevant?

We don't need morality to know that you can't take the puppies elevator to its fifteenth floor.
Without truth destroying the planet is construed as good for humanity.
Morality can only be build on the basis of truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are very lost on this and do not seem to cognize the concept and imperative of the necessary framework and system to ground truth, reality and objectivity.

Can you confirm the idea of a framework and system is nonsensical or non-existent [it seems to you] and unnecessary, irrelevant?

We don't need morality to know that you can't take the puppies elevator to its fifteenth floor.
Without truth destroying the planet is construed as good for humanity.
Morality can only be build on the basis of truth.

What is your definition of truth?
How do you establish your basis of truth is objective?
Your points are too shallow and narrow.

Note my points:
There are Two Senses of Truth
viewtopic.php?t=42081

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

[PeteOlcott]

You are very lost on this and do not seem to cognize the concept and imperative of the necessary framework and system to ground truth, reality and objectivity.

Can you confirm the idea of a framework and system is nonsensical or non-existent [it seems to you] and unnecessary, irrelevant?

We don't need morality to know that you can't take the puppies elevator to its fifteenth floor.
Without truth destroying the planet is construed as good for humanity.
Morality can only be build on the basis of truth.

What is your definition of truth?
How do you establish your basis of truth is objective?
Your points are too shallow and narrow.

Note my points:
There are Two Senses of Truth
viewtopic.php?t=42081

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Every expression of language X that is {true on the basis of its meaning}
is only true when there exists a sequence of truth preserving operations
from its meaning to X.

{cats} <are> {animals} is true even in the case where all of reality is a
mere figment of one's own imagination.

In other words for all expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
we are merely looking up established relations between finite strings in the same
sort of way that we verify that 2 + 3 =5. There is no subjectively to arithmetic
thus equally no subjectively for expressions {true on the basis of their meaning}.