Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am Are you declaring you will not believe and accept whatever scientific facts/truths/knowledge from the scientific FSK?

Sure. Why not.

I am declaring that I will only take into consideration those facts that are useful to me.

My attitude towards other facts is that of indifference. You have facts/truth/knowledge? Great! SO what?

I don't see any value in your facts, truth or knowledge. OUGHT I see any value?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am If you are living in a low lying area near the coast and there is a warning of a VERY big tsunami [based on scientific research] on the way, you will not run to high grounds because you do not have any trust in scientific based inferences from scientific facts?

IF I am living in such an area.

IF I am not living in such an area... I am indifferent to your science.

Tsunami. SO WHAT?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am Are you declaring you will not believe and accept whatever scientific facts/truths/knowledge from the scientific FSK?

If you are living in a low lying area near the coast and there is a warning of a VERY big tsunami [based on scientific research] on the way, you will not run to high grounds because you do not have any trust in scientific based inferences from scientific facts?

The systemic issue you are overlooking is that humans (in general) are subjected to information overload.

There's simply too many facts. Too much knowledge. Too much truth. Too much meaning.

To even attempt to believe/absorb it all is to drive yourself to insanity. It's not physically possible. Your brain is too tiny for the task so it's only natural that people develop filtering mechanisms.

If you can't convince me that your facts are relevant to me - I have no obligation to believe them.

But that just leaves you right where you started.

Which facts OUGHT I absorb, and which facts OUGHT I discard.... is precisely the is-ought gap unsolved.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am Are you declaring you will not believe and accept whatever scientific facts/truths/knowledge from the scientific FSK?

Sure. Why not.

I am declaring that I will only take into consideration those facts that are useful to me.

You stated this earlier,

• "Trust and credibility are artefacts of a value system. I trust X is the same as saying I believe X on faith."

Point is when you "take into consideration those facts that are useful to me" it is implicit you have exercised trust and faith in those facts which you are not involved directly in verifying and justifying them.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:29 am If you are living in a low lying area near the coast and there is a warning of a VERY big tsunami [based on scientific research] on the way, you will not run to high grounds because you do not have any trust in scientific based inferences from scientific facts?

IF I am living in such an area.

IF I am not living in such an area... I am indifferent to your science.

Tsunami. SO WHAT?

If that is the case,
I hope you will meet a sexy mermaid in your water-world then.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:49 am Point is when you "take into consideration those facts that are useful to me" it is implicit you have exercised trust and faith in those facts which are are not involved directly in verifying and justifying them.

Precisely.

If you have to verify/justify an FSK then it's obvious that you don't trust it.
And if you do trust an FSK, then why do you need to justify/verify it?

Trust and Justification are mutually exclusive.

Never mind the fact that you continue to ignore the problem I am pointing at.

Which FSK OUGHT you trust with regards to Tsunami early warning? The one that's justified ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:49 am If that is the case,
I hope you will meet a sexy mermaid in your water-world then.

Did you understand the implications of my IF?

I am up in the mountains. Don't give a shit about Tsunamis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:09 am As your point re Heidegger, you are only relying on hearsays from other bias philosophers.

???

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:46 am But what is critical here is all philosophers has a specific core philosophical stance, i.e. where he is either,

• 1. Philosophical Realist [PR] or
  2. Philosophical Anti-realist [PaR]

where all his other main philosophical views are hinged upon.

No. That is wrong. People actually have all sorts of different approaches.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:41 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:27 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:38 am But reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.

Don't forget unicorn_ness and magic_ness, both of those are now ISes too.

I am restating here,
whatever that is claimed as real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible framework and system.

Unicorns are an empirically possible but subject to the empirical evidences to confirm its existences.

A square-circle, God, and the likes are empirically impossible, thus cannot be real [is, exists] from the start.

That invalidates your argument. You are using as a premise that reality includes such contentious things as "oughtness" without establishing any empirical reason for that to be so. The premise only stands if non empirical objects such as the imaginary contents of the human mind are included, in which case unicrorns are included too with the full force of the argument for whatever that is worth and unicorns can therefore be 'derivable from is'.

And so of course can much more troubling things, such as fashion. All of the arguments you have presented to try and make something objective and factual out of morality could, be used to prove that your trousers are the wrong colour.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:09 am As your point re Heidegger, you are only relying on hearsays from other bias philosophers.

???

Note your very wild claims,

• where I have serious issues with literally every single sentence they uttered. A good example is Heidegger.

Have you read the full range of Heidegger's work or read in detail his main Being and Time?

If you are an ardent follower of Carnap, Heidegger would immediately be 'satan' to you purely based on very bias opinions.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:46 am But what is critical here is all philosophers has a specific core philosophical stance, i.e. where he is either,

• 1. Philosophical Realist [PR] or
  2. Philosophical Anti-realist [PaR]

where all his other main philosophical views are hinged upon.

No. That is wrong. People actually have all sorts of different approaches.

Can you elaborate?

It is true people have different approaches, but their core and fundamental philosophy would be reducible to PR or PaR because Reality as ALL-there-is is supposedly comprised of one basic substance-matter-physical as in Substance theory.

For example all scientists and even theists will agree with Newtonian Physics where Newton claim Reality as ALL-there-is is created by God.
Then we have a different approach to reality in Physics which is Einsteinian which do not agree with Newton's ultimate grounding.
As Physicists dig deeper into the common basic matter/physical substance of reality, those with Quantum Physics do not agree with Einstein's theory and Einstein rejected the principles of QM.

As with the above, there are different approaches but they are all reducible to one basic substance of reality.
On this basic substance of reality, one will have to take either the PR or PaR position.

Try it,
take any different philosophical position and try to seek its grounding or foundation, it will end up with a PR or PaR position.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:41 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:27 am
Don't forget unicorn_ness and magic_ness, both of those are now ISes too.

I am restating here,
whatever that is claimed as real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible framework and system.

Unicorns are an empirically possible but subject to the empirical evidences to confirm its existences.

A square-circle, God, and the likes are empirically impossible, thus cannot be real [is, exists] from the start.

That invalidates your argument. You are using as a premise that reality includes such contentious things as "oughtness" without establishing any empirical reason for that to be so. The premise only stands if non empirical objects such as the imaginary contents of the human mind are included, in which case unicrorns are included too with the full force of the argument for whatever that is worth and unicorns can therefore be 'derivable from is'.

And so of course can much more troubling things, such as fashion. All of the arguments you have presented to try and make something objective and factual out of morality could, be used to prove that your trousers are the wrong colour.

I believe I have posted the following example before, here again,

Here is an analogy:

• 1. Take a river system in the high mountains for example. - empirical fact.
  2. Gravity imposes strong forces of kinetic energy in those rivers - empirical fact.
  3. A dam as a fixed structure is built across a river inhibiting and regulating the flow of water. - empirical fact.
  4. The dam generates resistance against the flow of water which is represented by great tension and forces - empirical fact.
  5. In a way this resistance force is an 'ought-not_ness' to prevent water from flowing as before - which is a fact within the scientific-physics FSK.

The term 'ought-not_ness' in the above example is valid but inappropriate for physical things.

Analogously the above is applicable to the moral system work within the human brain.

• 1. Take the evolution of humans. -empirical fact
  2. ALL humans are programmed with the potential to kill. -empirical fact
  3. All humans are also programmed with inhibitors of 'not to kill' to regulate 2 - empirical fact
  4. This not-to-kill inhibitors generate resistance to 2 which are represented by tensions and forces. - this is an empirical biological fact.
  5. Within the moral FSK, this resistance is the 'ougth-not-ness' of 'ought-not-to-kill is a moral fact.

The moral framework and system is constituted by the definition of what is morality-proper.
Morality-proper generally is to promote good [ought-to] and avoid evil [ought-not-to] for the well being of the individual and humanity.

The above 1 to 4 are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophical within the scientific FSK and when 1-4 are input into the moral FSK, it is a moral fact that is independent of individuals opinions and beliefs.

Therefore I have demonstrated 'oughtness' that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the respective FSK, in this case the moral FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:53 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:41 am
I am restating here,
whatever that is claimed as real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible framework and system.

Unicorns are an empirically possible but subject to the empirical evidences to confirm its existences.

A square-circle, God, and the likes are empirically impossible, thus cannot be real [is, exists] from the start.

That invalidates your argument. You are using as a premise that reality includes such contentious things as "oughtness" without establishing any empirical reason for that to be so. The premise only stands if non empirical objects such as the imaginary contents of the human mind are included, in which case unicrorns are included too with the full force of the argument for whatever that is worth and unicorns can therefore be 'derivable from is'.

And so of course can much more troubling things, such as fashion. All of the arguments you have presented to try and make something objective and factual out of morality could, be used to prove that your trousers are the wrong colour.

I believe I have posted the following example before, here again,

Here is an analogy:

• 1. Take a river system in the high mountains for example. - empirical fact.
  2. Gravity imposes strong forces of kinetic energy in those rivers - empirical fact.
  3. A dam as a fixed structure is built across a river inhibiting and regulating the flow of water. - empirical fact.
  4. The dam generates resistance against the flow of water which is represented by great tension and forces - empirical fact.
  5. In a way this resistance force is an 'ought-not_ness' to prevent water from flowing as before - which is a fact within the scientific-physics FSK.

The term 'ought-not_ness' in the above example is valid but inappropriate for physical things.

Analogously the above is applicable to the moral system work within the human brain.

• 1. Take the evolution of humans. -empirical fact
  2. ALL humans are programmed with the potential to kill. -empirical fact
  3. All humans are also programmed with inhibitors of 'not to kill' to regulate 2 - empirical fact
  4. This not-to-kill inhibitors generate resistance to 2 which are represented by tensions and forces. - this is an empirical biological fact.
  5. Within the moral FSK, this resistance is the 'ougth-not-ness' of 'ought-not-to-kill is a moral fact.

The moral framework and system is constituted by the definition of what is morality-proper.
Morality-proper generally is to promote good [ought-to] and avoid evil [ought-not-to] for the well being of the individual and humanity.

The above 1 to 4 are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophical within the scientific FSK and when 1-4 are input into the moral FSK, it is a moral fact that is independent of individuals opinions and beliefs.

Therefore I have demonstrated 'oughtness' that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the respective FSK, in this case the moral FSK.

That analogy about dams is poor, but beside the point. You are sidestepping into a completely different argument with different weaknesses to the one I was attacking.

Either your argument I was referencing is deductive - in which case all-that-there-is can be said to contain 'oughtness' to the exact extent that it contains 'unicornness' and 'tastelesstrouserness'. Or the world-contains-oughntess thing was supposed to be empirical, in which case you can show what an actual unit of oughtness is by pointing to some ought that is there be weighed and tagged.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:18 am It is true people have different approaches, but their core and fundamental philosophy would be reducible to PR or PaR

Let me just clarify first whether you're saying here that you could interpret anything so that it's reducible to either realism or anti-realism?

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=496568 time=1613484418 user_id=12582]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=496495 time=1613452718 user_id=7896]
It is true people have different approaches, but their core and fundamental philosophy would be reducible to PR or PaR
[/quote]

Let me just clarify first whether you're saying here that [i]you[/i] could [i]interpret[/i] anything so that it's reducible to either realism or anti-realism?
[/quote]

Y'all are two of the most capable people i've found here (not that that's saying much) and your on track to a real discussion but your deconstruction is lacking. You're using too many words and concepts that obscure rather than clarify the issue.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:26 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:18 am It is true people have different approaches, but their core and fundamental philosophy would be reducible to PR or PaR

Let me just clarify first whether you're saying here that you could interpret anything so that it's reducible to either realism or anti-realism?

Y'all are two of the most capable people i've found here (not that that's saying much) and your on track to a real discussion but your deconstruction is lacking. You're using too many words and concepts that obscure rather than clarify the issue.

What part of that question do you think is obscuring rather than clarifying? The word "interpretation"?

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=496579 time=1613485809 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=496575 time=1613485615 user_id=15238]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=496568 time=1613484418 user_id=12582]


Let me just clarify first whether you're saying here that [i]you[/i] could [i]interpret[/i] anything so that it's reducible to either realism or anti-realism?
[/quote]

Y'all are two of the most capable people i've found here (not that that's saying much) and your on track to a real discussion but your deconstruction is lacking. You're using too many words and concepts that obscure rather than clarify the issue.
[/quote]

What part of that question do you think is obscuring rather than clarifying? The word "interpretation"?
[/quote]

It seems to be heading further and further from is/ought every time a new concept gets involved. It's not clear at this point whether y'all are taking about is/ought at all, and certainly not anything related to the OP