The Limit of Hume's Knowledge

[Peter Holmes]

All agreed - and well-put.

VA's P: There are only FSERC facts.

Is that an FSERC fact?

Similar things have been pointed out to VA a number of times. It's related to 'which FSERC determined that science is the best FSERC and if it wasn't the scientific FSERC then how can we trust it'? And if it was the scientific FSERC, that's pretty circular.

Could you or FDP ask VA about the E part of FSERC? It stands for emergence, but I have no idea what this means in his ever growing acronym?

He's semi-ignoring me and only occasionally responding obliquely.

1 The science FSERC gold standard? A fundamental question which VA can't even try to answer - because to do so would demolish the FSERC theory.

2 What VA calls 'emergence' is mystical claptrap. And all we'll get is links to numerous posts where 'emergence' is explained - uselessly.

[Iwannaplato]

All agreed - and well-put.

VA's P: There are only FSERC facts.

Is that an FSERC fact?

Similar things have been pointed out to VA a number of times. It's related to 'which FSERC determined that science is the best FSERC and if it wasn't the scientific FSERC then how can we trust it'? And if it was the scientific FSERC, that's pretty circular.

Could you or FDP ask VA about the E part of FSERC? It stands for emergence, but I have no idea what this means in his ever growing acronym?

He's semi-ignoring me and only occasionally responding obliquely.

1 The science FSERC gold standard? A fundamental question which VA can't even try to answer - because to do so would demolish the FSERC theory.

2 What VA calls 'emergence' is mystical claptrap. And all we'll get is links to numerous posts where 'emergence' is explained - uselessly.

Given his version of anti-realism I wondered if it was a way of saying that whatever is experience emerges/arises as it is experience and known. Though it could also be emergence in the philosophical sense, but that makes the acronym, at the very least, in need of some very clear explanation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had argued, my basis of what is fact and therefrom what is objectivity are both contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS i.e. FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard.
Since we can establish a human-based moral FSERC which has near credibility and objectivity to the gold standard, morality is objective [as qualified to the set of specific moral elements].

1 Your FSERC theory of facts can't explain why the natural sciences are 'the gold standard' for objectivity - because you deny the existence of facts outside an FSERC. So the theory is useless.

My FSERC is empirical realism, i.e. what is reality and factual is confined to what is empirical and empirically possible plus reinforced with critical and rational thinking.
Thus what is reality and factual is what is is possible to be experienced, observed so it is purely evidential based of which the scientific FSERC is the most credible and objective.

Whatever is FSERC-ed is independent of a subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment, it is conditioned upon the intersubjective agreements of a collective of subjects - therefore it is objective.

Now, your idea of what is fact is something that is outside an FSERC, i.e. it is something existing by itself, absolutely independent of the human conditions, which is beyond the empirical world in la la land.
You have not been able to 'prove' [in the ultimate sense] the reality of your fact which is absolutely independent of the human conditions and exists regardless of whether there are in human or not.

2 Your claim that there is or can be a moral FSERC begs the question. You answer the question 'What could make morality objective?' by saying 'Morality is objective, because there are moral facts within a moral FSERC' - which is useless.

A FSERC is a framework and system [FS] which can be attributed to any FS. i.e. scientific, legal, political, historical, social, and so on, so, a moral FSERC.

Whatever the resultant [facts, reality, truths, knowledge] of an FSERC is contingent upon a collective of subject, i.e. not dependent of the opinions, beliefs and judgment of an individual subject, so, it is objective in that sense.
Since a moral FSERC is possible,
so objective morality [FSERC-based] is possible.

Note. FSERC is not merely knowledge, cognition, perception and description of a thing, it covers the emergence and realization of reality of the thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All agreed - and well-put.

VA's P: There are only FSERC facts.

Is that an FSERC fact?

Similar things have been pointed out to VA a number of times. It's related to 'which FSERC determined that science is the best FSERC and if it wasn't the scientific FSERC then how can we trust it'? And if it was the scientific FSERC, that's pretty circular.

Could you or FDP ask VA about the E part of FSERC? It stands for emergence, but I have no idea what this means in his ever growing acronym?

He's semi-ignoring me and only occasionally responding obliquely.

1 The science FSERC gold standard? A fundamental question which VA can't even try to answer - because to do so would demolish the FSERC theory.

2 What VA calls 'emergence' is mystical claptrap. And all we'll get is links to numerous posts where 'emergence' is explained - uselessly.

Have you ever reflect that your philosophical thinking is too outdated, shallow, narrow and dogmatic?
Your philosophical basis is most likely that of Analytic Philosophy grounded on philosophical realism where both are near-death at present.
Whilst there are some utilities re analysis, all the supposed philosophical innovations [supposed paradigms] raised by Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and the like are either refuted, defeated or self-defeated [e.g. early to middle to late W].

2 What VA calls 'emergence' is mystical claptrap. And all we'll get is links to numerous posts where 'emergence' is explained - uselessly.

The above exposed your ignorance of more advance philosophical knowledge and topics.

Emergence is a very serious philosophical topic.
In this 3 notable philosophical sites;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
https://iep.utm.edu/emergence/

An extensive Bibliography in Philosophy-Papers;
https://philpapers.org/browse/emergence

The concept of emergence is covered with philosophical realism and philosophical antirealism.

Btw, I have explained why your clinging-on to philosophical realism and analytic-philosophy is a psychological issue and it is a hindrance to the progress of humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA's P: There are only FSERC facts.
Is that an FSERC fact?

Yes, "there are only FSERC facts" is a FSERC fact that statement is based on a linguistic FSERC.

The point is one cannot claim 'what is a fact' without qualification to a Framework and System, i.e. FSERC. e.g.
Water is H20 because the science-macro-chemistry said so.
(water is not H20 if within science-micro-chemistry where ions are considered)

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1]
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

To be proper, there cannot be any standalone fact, i.e. fact-in-itself or fact-by-itself.

The above examples are only valid when qualified to the specific FSERC,
"The sun is a star" because the science-cosmology FSERC said so.
A FSERC is grounded on a collective-of-subjects so it objective, i.e. independent of individuals' belief, knowledge and opinion.

The credibility and objectivity of any FSERC is contrasted against the gold standard, i.e. the scientific FSERC rated based on generally accepted rational criteria and its relevant weightages.

Your claims are like;
"The sun is a star" - that's it, or
because I said so! or my father, mother, brothers, sons, and the like said so!

Your thinking of 'what is fact' is very primitive and kindi;
At our stage of philosophical thinking we need to be rigoristic and cannot ignore the underlying conditions that support a statement of fact, e.g.
"The sun is a star"
is because the science-cosmology FSERC said so,
to be more serious we have to track back the conditions to the Big Bang.

This is why I have always charge you that your thinking is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.