Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas takes another shit on the Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 29, 2023 3:51 pm "There is no absolute objectivity nor absolute human independent objective reality. What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK."

So it was an intersubjective truth (fact) that the earth was the center of the solar system before copernicus came around, or was it just an intersubjective belief based on an inaccurate FSK about the nature of objective reality?

You are claiming to be an omniscient God?

Do a reasonable reflective thinking on this?

Do you think a virus, bacteria, insect, reptile, bats, fishes and non-human animals would have such a realization of reality and knowledge that
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"

Do you think those non-human animals would have concepts and reality like,
-the earth,
-center of,
-solar system,
-before,
-Copernicus,
-the combination of the above into a realization and statement?

It is the same if one ask,
did the moon pre-existed [before] humans and even if humans are extinct?

If there are viruses or bacteria in the whole universe, their cognition and reality would likely be this;


for a virus, there is only the above with cluster of denser particles,
there is no -the earth, -center of, -solar system, -before, -Copernicus,

other non-human living things would see clusters [in different densities] of moving particles.

As such, it is only humans who realize, perceive and know the following specific human-subjects-based reality;
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
"the moon pre-existed [before] humans and even if humans are extinct"

In any case, humans have just evolved from 'animals' not too long ago relative to the evolutionary ladder.
Do you claim yourself or for other humans that they are like an omniscient God to insist what they perceived as real is absolutely and 100% certainly true?

If you are not an omniscient God, you cannot claim
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
is absolutely true.

In that case, you can only claim the above is true not by yourself personally but intersubjectively [collective-of-subjects] within a human based FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.

The fact is for whatever you realize as really real, you cannot get rid of the human-baggage that is imperatively attached to it.

An entity with higher intelligence [10x, 100x or more] than humans is not likely to state,
"that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
or
"there is a Big Bang before the Universe existed."

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
-human based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-aliens based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-XYZ based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
without any fixed absolute reality.

Why humans think they are godlike on claims of reality is actually, as Hume alluded, out of psychological desperations from constant conjunctions, customs and habits.

Bro i don't know what's going on here but u may have misunderstood me. I'm saying prior to copernicus's discovery, a whole bunch of people thought the earth was the center of the solar system. This belief was held intersubjectively. So according to u, it was actually true that the earth was at the center of the solar system becuz it was an intersubjective FSK. As it turns out, the earth, in fact, was not at the center of the solar system... so the prior intersubjective FSK held by those people was wrong. This must mean that a) intersubjective beliefs do not constitute objective facts, or b) reality literally changed before their eyes; prior to copernicus's discovery, the earth WAS at the center of the solar system... and then it wasn't... right before copernicus did his stuff.

Now which do u think it is, A or B?

....

"you cannot claim that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
is absolutely true.

No shit, dude. I'm NOT claiming that.

Btw, if viruses and bacteria are seeing this:


They should contact their cable provider immediately.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 2:01 pm Bro i don't know what's going on here but u may have misunderstood me.
I'm saying prior to copernicus's discovery, a whole bunch of people thought the earth was the center of the solar system. This belief was held intersubjectively.
So according to u, it was actually true that the earth was at the center of the solar system becuz it was an intersubjective FSK.

As it turns out, the earth, in fact, was not at the center of the solar system... so the prior intersubjective FSK held by those people was wrong.

This must mean that
a) intersubjective beliefs do not constitute objective facts, or
b) reality literally changed before their eyes; prior to copernicus's discovery, the earth WAS at the center of the solar system... and then it wasn't... right before copernicus did his stuff.

Now which do u think it is, A or B?
....

"you cannot claim that the earth was the center of the solar system before Copernicus came around,"
is absolutely true.

No shit, dude. I'm NOT claiming that.

OK,

My principle;
Whatever is true, factual, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSK, i.e. intersubjective.

Prior to Copernicus, it was held that "the Earth is the center of the Solar System".
Since that was held intersubjectively, it must be true in according to my principle,
But it was found to be false,
so intersubjectivity cannot represent truth nor constitute objective facts.

What is not highlighted here [but repeated many times elsewhere] is
what is true, factual, knowledge, exists, objective come in varying degrees within a continuum from 0.001% to 100%.
At present, there is no FSK intersubjectivity that is more credible, objective or true than that of the scientific FSK, so we can assign it as the standard at 100/100.

As with the intersubjective Geocentric-FSK prior to Copernicus, because it is intersubjective , its claim "the Earth is the center of the Solar System" is true and objective BUT relative to the scientific FSK [100/100], its objectivity and truth along the continuum is 0.01/100.

It is same with any other FSKs [theology, legal, political, social, economics, arts, etc.] i.e. based the consensus of a collective-of-subjects thus intersubjective.
The question is what is their degree of objectivity or truth relative and in contrast to the scientific-FSK as the Standard.
As such, on a rational basis, the truthfulness and objectivity from an intersubjective theological FSK would be rated at 0.0001/100.
Facts from the legal FSK of a sovereign could be rated at >50-75/100.

The concept of the continuum is for purpose of efficiency [pragmatic purposes] where differences are brought within [roped in] a common denominator to prevent excuses they are different so cannot be compared.

"As with the intersubjective Geocentric-FSK prior to Copernicus, because it is intersubjective , its claim "the Earth is the center of the Solar System" is true and objective BUT relative to the scientific FSK [100/100], its objectivity and truth along the continuum is 0.01/100."

What is this contnuum stuff? The geocentric theory was not a true theory that was approaching falsehood and becomming less true as scientific knowledge was gained about the solar system. It was never true, bruh. Not even kinda true. Not even a smidgen true.

Are u some kind of brainiac stuck in the premature epistemology phase of philosophy? Bro you're gonna have to move on and attempt to change the world rather than spend you're whole life interpreting it.

For two points, what famous philosopher and political theorist did i allude to there?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 5:30 pm "As with the intersubjective Geocentric-FSK prior to Copernicus, because it is intersubjective , its claim "the Earth is the center of the Solar System" is true and objective BUT relative to the scientific FSK [100/100], its objectivity and truth along the continuum is 0.01/100."

What is this continuum stuff? The geocentric theory was not a true theory that was approaching falsehood and becomming less true as scientific knowledge was gained about the solar system. It was never true, bruh. Not even kinda true. Not even a smidgen true.

Are u some kind of brainiac stuck in the premature epistemology phase of philosophy? Bro you're gonna have to move on and attempt to change the world rather than spend you're whole life interpreting it.

For two points, what famous philosopher and political theorist did i allude to there?

Rather it is your views that is immature, shallow and narrow.

The geocentric theory was 'true' for thousands of years and such a theory have had utilities, perhaps survival values then, maybe even now for some.
Placing it within a continuum does not mean it become lesser and lesser true.

I mentioned FSK, i.e. Framework and System of Knowledge or in simple terms a 'model'.
Within the geocentric FSK or model, it is 100% true but ONLY qualified within the conditions of that the geocentric FSK or model.
But when deliberated within the scientific FSK-model, it is 99.99% [science do not claim 100% certainty] false.
Using science as a standard [the best at present], we can then place the credibility of the geocentric FSK-Model at the end of the continuum as 0.01% true which is evidently 99.99% false.
There is no absolutely mind-independent truth, we always have to rely a reference to some kind of model or Standard.

Analogy:
If you add 1 tin of white paint to 10,000 tins of black paint,
it is fact that mixed color is 99.99% black and 0.01% white which is an undisputed fact regardless of how evident the color of the mixture is black.
You deny this?
The above interpretation has utility if for some reason a 100% black mixture is needed or any combination of grey.

With the truth continuum with science as a standard at 100/100, placing the geocentric FSK-Model at 0.01 is an objective claim that it is false and has no hope of being true.
If we do not rope-in the geocentric FSK-Model or any theological claims of 'God exists' within the ambit of the truth continuum, this will leave theists with the hope that there is a high possibility and a false hope their claim could be 100% true.
This is actually what is happening at present where many will separate faith from rational science, thus leaving room for certain theists to have false hopes and therefrom commit all sort of religious driven evils.

Are u some kind of brainiac stuck in the premature epistemology phase of philosophy? Bro you're gonna have to move on and attempt to change the world rather than spend you're whole life interpreting it.

Can you sense from the above I am moving into the pragmatic sphere?
Looks like you want me to stop at it?

Where did you get the idea I am stuck with merely interpreting life?
Before we can act effectively we must 'know thyself' [Socrates] (analyze and interpret).

I am with Kant's overall philosophy, i.e.
1. What can I know - epistemology, science
2. What can I do - actions that are moral and productive
3. What can I hope for - continually progressing towards an ideal perpetual peace.

"The geocentric theory was 'true' for thousands of years and such a theory have had utilities, perhaps survival values then, maybe even now for some."

"Can you sense from the above I am moving into the pragmatic sphere?"

I can sense that. I know what you're tryna say, but check this out. The reason why the belief in the geocentric model was pragmatically useful was becuz being wrong about the objective truth- that the earth isn't at the center of the solar system - brought about no real consequences for those who believed it. Which is to say, u could believe in the geocentric model and even claim that belief is useful. For example, say u practice a religion that says u should be nice to people and that god put the erf at the center of the solar system. Believing in the geocentric model would then reinforce your belief in that god.... which would then make it easier for u to want to be nice to people (becuz that geocentric model belief serves as more proof that this god exists and that he wants u to be nice to people). In this way, the geocentric model belief is useful in a sense even tho it is wrong.

But there's a problem tho we'll let it slide for the moment. It can be argued that beliefs don't cause us to do what we do, e.g. be nice to people, in which case the belief in the geocentric model wouldn't be pragmatically useful becuz it doesn't cause u to be nice to people.

That aside, here's the bigger objection to pragmatism that i was getting at. Suppose the pragmatic FSK for group x was 'humans can fly'. It's an intersubjective belief held by many people and it has a degree of truth (according to u).

The moment that group went to test that theory, and jumped off the roof, they would quickly discover how wrong they were.

But what would the consequences be for believing in the geocentric model? Nothing. There are none. So, one can safely believe that the erf is at the center of the solar system.

Point: a pragmatic belief is possible only insofar as that belief does not present consequences preventing u from believing in it. U can be wrong, and even call that wrong belief useful, as long as being wrong doesn't become dangerous. If u perform a 'reality check', u may find your pragmatic belief isn't so useful after all.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:50 am "The geocentric theory was 'true' for thousands of years and such a theory have had utilities, perhaps survival values then, maybe even now for some."

"Can you sense from the above I am moving into the pragmatic sphere?"

I can sense that. I know what you're tryna say, but check this out. The reason why the belief in the geocentric model was pragmatically useful was becuz being wrong about the objective truth- that the earth isn't at the center of the solar system - brought about no real consequences for those who believed it. Which is to say, u could believe in the geocentric model and even claim that belief is useful. For example, say u practice a religion that says u should be nice to people and that god put the erf at the center of the solar system. Believing in the geocentric model would then reinforce your belief in that god.... which would then make it easier for u to want to be nice to people (becuz that geocentric model belief serves as more proof that this god exists and that he wants u to be nice to people). In this way, the geocentric model belief is useful in a sense even tho it is wrong.

But there's a problem tho we'll let it slide for the moment. It can be argued that beliefs don't cause us to do what we do, e.g. be nice to people, in which case the belief in the geocentric model wouldn't be pragmatically useful becuz it doesn't cause u to be nice to people.

That aside, here's the bigger objection to pragmatism that i was getting at. Suppose the pragmatic FSK for group x was 'humans can fly'. It's an intersubjective belief held by many people and it has a degree of truth (according to u).

The moment that group went to test that theory, and jumped off the roof, they would quickly discover how wrong they were.

It is not likely for any group of normal humans that believe 'human can fly' to establish a FSK on this matter.
One can test it by trying to fly off from the ground, from 5 feet or from 30 feet or more into a river or sea.

But what would the consequences be for believing in the geocentric model? Nothing. There are none. So, one can safely believe that the erf is at the center of the solar system.

Point: a pragmatic belief is possible only insofar as that belief does not present consequences preventing u from believing in it. U can be wrong, and even call that wrong belief useful, as long as being wrong doesn't become dangerous. If u perform a 'reality check', u may find your pragmatic belief isn't so useful after all.

The belief in the the geocentric model could have many utilities and values then;
1. Any belief in agreement with observations is comforting.

2. In the face of a heliocentric counter in the early day, sticking to the geocentric model based is therapeutic to soothing any terrible pains and insecurities cognitive dissonances. In the absence of scientific proofs then, there is cognitive dissonance to believe otherwise.

3. The geocentric model fits in with religious beliefs and to go against God's omnicience would meant hellfire.

At present there is still a large group of people who insist the Earth is Flat.
Inside a Flat Earth convention, where nearly everyone believes Earth isn't round
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gHbwT_R9t0

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:04 pm The Concise Oxford definition of the word fact demonstrates a deep conceptual confusion:

'Noun. A thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.'

Obviously, only a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - can be true or false. (We can leave aside other uses for true and false, such as 'her aim is true' and 'a false knave'.)

Things that exist or have occurred - features of reality outside language - just are or were the case, neither true nor false. So the definition of fact demonstrates two radically different uses for the word.

But then, to add more confusion, in the definition, there's the 'is known' condition for being a fact. And that requires a knower.

So the definition states that the fact that the earth (a feature of reality) exists must be known for it to be a fact. But then, if nobody knew the earth exists, that would mean it doesn't exist. Which is a strangely twisted conclusion. And here's one expression of this absurdity:

'Facts only exist in the context of entities capable of asserting factuality.'

So I think that being known is not a necessary condition for being a fact - and the dictionary definition is confused and confusing. For example, we perfectly coherently say that we don't know all the facts. And when we do know them, we'd never say those facts didn't exist before we knew them.

And here, a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. Or the expression 'state-of-affairs' has often been used instead.

We have gone through this a 'million' times.

I argued,
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. The FSRK-ed sense - realistic
2. The independent of human senses -illusory [yours]

There is no fact without it being grounded upon an embodied human-based FSRK.

A dictionary meaning of 'what is fact' is too limited.

A better one should be a philosophical one, say from WIKI.
I have also quoted this a 'million' times.

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 [FSRK] fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical [FSRK] fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical [FSRK] facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion

The above facts do not have any credibility or objectivity without being grounded in their respective FSRK [with its constitution and all necessary conditions].

Your 'what is fact' is merely a linguistic [FSRK] fact.

@PH

You have not provided sufficient argument to support your 'what is fact' is realistic.

Before you can claim any credibility you have to counter this OP, i.e. your 'what is fact' is not illusory.

I have provided my argument 'what is fact'
What is a [FSRC-ed] Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486