FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 11:07 am
That's a fact about the market value in which we swao stuff we own for stuff we want. It doesn't measure the 'value' of a sentiment relating to the object, and indeed when we describe objects of such sentimental value we often use the word "priceless" specifically for this reason.
Your counter is short-sighted.
If you have done Economic 101, you will understand whatever is of market value is imbued with an element of
sentiment in relation to the object. The most obvious the Share Price of Shares in the Stock Market.
You cannot deny there are economic facts which are imbued with elements of sentiments.
You aren't equipped to argue economics with me, I say that as just friendly advice. You are talking about the intangible component of a utility function and desire for the object itself resulting from sentiment is only one factor informing prices, along with others such as expectations (what have other people been paying for this item) and scarcity, as well as other motivations aside from admiration such as need. Prices are signals only of what a market has paid for a given commodity recently and where sellers and buyers believe those prices are heading. That's something else you would learn in econ 101.
But of course you know that, which is why you chose the words "imbued with an element of". If beer is imbued with an element of alcohol, I don't pretend I am measuring its alcohol content by just just pouring the beer into a measuring jug and announcing "1 pint of alcohol". If I need to know what the alcohol content of the beer is, I need to find out what percentage of the total beer the aclohol represents. You can't do that ion your example, so you aren't measuring the thing you are pretending to. and you know this too, you are making a clumsy attempt to hoodwink me, but that only exposes the fact that you know you need to mislead me.
Your whole schema here is much like a price tag applied to an item on a supermarket chelf I guess. Not any indication of the intangible value of anything itself, but just a blunt measure of how the item is currently trending. An easy mistake to make, but still a mistake.
I am not an expert in the full range Economics, but I understand Economics 101 and the generic principles of how human nature supervenes on whatever the economic theories.
Note the contention here is;
You insist fact is fact -from the Philosophical Realist position
I insist value-of-fact is fact.
I have argued,
Price [value] is an economic fact
Elements of price = the object + sentiment or even pure sentiment.
Therefore economic fact is comprised of the element of sentiment [feelings, sensations].
An economic fact is a fact
Therefore there are facts that comprised of the element of sentiment [feelings, sensations].
Your argument fact is confined only to fact-of-matter is false.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
With these arguments (see below) you are falling into the trap that axiologists like Prof always walk into, you are absent-mindedly substituting a thing that you can measure for the thing you cannot without recognising the placeholder is only there at all because the original object is not of a measurable type.
What original object is a measurable type?
There is no such thing.
Everything regardless it is physical or mental is measurable as long as there is a recognized Framework of Measurement that has intersubjective consensus.
Tell me exactly who is precisely the happiest man in the world today. Now tell me how you measured his exact happiness, and tell is what the current world record for happiness is. Design a machine to measure it.
I think Vermeer's The Milkmaid is the greatest work of art ever, something about it's use of negative space really sparks my joy. My friend is convinced that the cubist masterpiece Guernica surpasses it though. Another friend thinks we are both nuts, ant that The Thieving Magpie Overture by Rossini far surpasses any painting. You can now use your science to prove which of us is right.
You haven't even attempted to cover an interesting topic with your stylings, it's all just "is murder wrong?". If you could do something interesting like examine the role of morality adjacent intangibles such as honour or piety in ethics you wouldn't be stuck doing such banal crap so don't get ahead of yourself.
I have asserted and demonstrated in the other thread,
Whatever conclusions drawn from a recognized framework of knowledge/claims are facts.
The veracity of such facts range from .01% to 99.99%.
That is how the Art [painting] community works based on the Framework and System of Art Paintings where the facts of prices/values for paintings are established, negotiated and traded with the respective currency.
Vermeer's The Milkmaid is not valued perhaps it is priceless.
That it is priceless is still a fact, i.e. it is a fact Vermeer's The Milkmaid is priceless.
Whenever a price is given for any painting or traded, that is an established fact within the art world. And this fact is imbued with elements of sentiments.
To measure who is the happiest man in the world or within any specific groups of people, what we need is to establish a Framework and System of Measuring Happiness. In this case the criteria of assessment will have to be developed and carefully weighted based on consensus.
In this case we can find out who is the happiest man in the world [on assumption we can survey every man on Earth] or within a Nation, state or a selected group.
The result will be a fact but must be qualified to the conditions of that specific Framework and System of Measuring Happiness.
Note this attempt to measure happiness which can only be relative but never absolutely-absolute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness
"
Gross National Happiness (also known by the acronym: GNH) is a philosophy that guides the government of Bhutan. It includes an
index which is used to measure the collective happiness and well-being of a population."
There is no way we can measure an absolutely-absolute state of happiness. 'What is happiness' is always relative to various conditions or defined conditions.
Don't be too arrogant, there is also no absolute-absolute fact justified from empirical evidence which the best Framework and System is Science. At the reservation is scientific knowledge are at best polished conjectures [Popper].
Therefore you do not have any solid grounds or authority to judge what is claim as fact is not up to your standard.
What is critical is for one to provide the relevant justifications and the defined Framework and System of Knowledge to provide the qualified contexts and grounds.
What is critical with fact regardless of its Framework and System is how efficient the facts are translated to utility for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
You think 'the table you are writing on is measurable' with absoluteness?
Note Russell's doubt 'Perhaps there is no real table at all' when deliberated with the most refined philosophical reflection.
As such, measuring a table in this case is measuring an illusory object.
Ugh, you and your antirealism. The point of debating that endlessly is that the world as we experience it isn't any different either way. Otherwise there would be a way of testing the question. Try to think through the implication that has for any argument you try to shore up with your antirealism stylings and you might get a hint as to why I always ignore them. A question that you would have learned to ask in Philosophy 101 is "what rests on this?" and the answer for you here is "nothing, nothing at all, so quit trying to rescue bad little arguments by with superscope issues"
This is critical!
As stated above, what grounds and authority do YOU have to judge others are wrong when your grounds are so flimsy.
All you do is "Ugh, you and your antirealism".
Show me your justifications to claim your grounds are solid?
My anti-realism is based on empirical realism [Kant's] which is grounded and based on empirical evidence.
On the other hand, your philosophical realism is never realistic.
Actually philosophical realism is
empirical-idealism, as it is grounded merely on sense data [ideas] and never the 'real' object - where there is no such thing in the first place.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
Again, in common with Prof, you are formalising opinion surveys as a sort of direct measurment of something that cannot be measured.
If 9 out of 10 judges think Miss Ukraine has the shapeliest tits, but judge 10 just likes them to be big so he prefers Miss Bulgaria, it isn't 90% true that Miss Ukraine has the best tits, it's just 100% true that 10 observers came to 10 sets of opinions and 9 correlated. No fact of value has emerged, the opinions collected are all equally unsupportable as a fact, collecting many of them provides a larger number of unsupportable as fact opinions.
Whatever your views, there is the fact is, Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019. This is an undisputable fact at present.
Value arise from evaluations, in this case, there is evaluation by the judges.
Thus the value-of-fact is a fact-of-value which fundamentally a fact.
So what? That is a fact about an opinion survey. It doesn't tell us anything about what it is that makes a person beautiful, nor anything else from which to extrapolate any information about beauty. You can collect data about all the Miss World winners there have ever been and decide what height is best for winning a beauty pageant, but why use Miss World as your data source for this sort of thing instead of Pornhub, which must collect vastly more information? If Miss World asserts that the most beuatiful women in the world are 5feet and nine inches tall, but Pornhub says they are 3 inches shorter than that, which gave you your fact about what beauty is?
So what??
A fact-of-opinion is still a fact relative to the Miss World Organization and the criteria established by that organization in arriving at that fact.
Regardless of what you think, there is consensus 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is a fact [albeit qualified].
This fact is recognized by many to the extend she is invited by various organizations and paid for her attendance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
Almost the only thing that historians can all be persuaded of is the falsity of that claim. The boring example everyone uses here is why did the Roman empire fall? historical fact is limited to the undisputed bits of the story, there was a cultural and political entity called the Roman Empire, by agreement it began with Augustus, and more or less ran continuously until let's say Augustulus Romulus. But historians tend to doubt a lot of what was written by chroniclers of the period, they do not at all agree that Augustulus Romulus was the last emperor (Odoacer just didn't use the formal title, but was poor little Augustulus really an emperor at all, and was Rome even an empire by then?).
It goes on, but historiographical interpretations are not considered fact, partly because they are all hotly contested (and we tend to think that two conflicting explanations cannot be called facts until that dispute is resolved when we are using our language according to what the damn words mean). But the other factor is that historians understand that there is no basis to describe this sort of thing as actual fact, they are keenly aware that we interpret history according to the interests of today, and future generations will interpret it according to new interests we cannot predict today.
Whatever it is, they are recognize as historical facts, i.e. facts except in this case, they must be taken with the recognized reservations but the majority will not do that.
Mutually exclusive facts. Which is something you really should have adressed already.
If one historian asserts that Rome fell when Odoacer didn't declare himself emporer, styling himself high king of Italy because the traditions of his tribal group were important to maintain than those of the empire he had conquered. To answer the question why did Rome fall, he answers barbarian invasion.
Another says that Rome fell a century before that, when the first provincial governor realised he no longer had to send tax revenues back to Rome and used the money to establish himself as a local king. His given asnwer for the cause of Rome's fall is disintegration.
A third blames the unequal split between East and West, as well as the establishment of Christianity resulting in 4 major power bases and revenue collecting points where there had been only one. A fourth tells us that climate change driven disease and famine broke the empire...
These are interpretations, not facts, informed by historiography - which is basically the stories historians tell to paint a picture of how and why stuff may have worked. If you downgrade your science to that level we will have to take your facts and downgrade those to interpretations too.
The Framework and System of History produces facts but such fact vary from 1% veracity to 99.99% veracity.
Whichever fact is disputed, those in the know will rate its veracity on the lower side.
But the point is whatever historical fact is accepted at 99.99% there is no certainty it will represent the true state-of-affairs of some past reality. In any case, there is no absolutely-absolute state-of-affairs of reality, whatever the result, it is still relative.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
My purpose is to promote morality-proper for the well being of humanity.
To be effective we need to establish a model, i.e. a Framework and System [F&S] of Morality and Ethics based on empirical evidence of human nature supported by philosophical reasoning.
You are attempting an impossible task. "Empirical evidence of human nature" can only yield behavioural information, but you keep trying to assert that your information goes deeper than that. You have a total mismatch between input and output and you will have to pick one. Either become a behaviourist and get it over with, or keep falling between two stools.
You are too shallow and narrow in this case.
Here is why my information goes deeper than what is known at present.
"Empirical evidence of human nature" since the beginning [200,000 years ago] has progressed the current state of the knowledge of the full human genome [which was once thought impossible] and we are now progressing with the Human Connectome,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
i.e. the full wirings of the human neurons and their effects [which as usual some pessimists claim is impossible].
I believe in the future, humanity will be able to pinpoint the neural connectivity that represent the
inherent moral algorithm in the brain and be able to expedite its function of morality progressively.
By then, what you claim exclusively as a matter-of-fact will be a matter-of-
fart.
