is/ought, final answer

[Terrapin Station]

Arbitrary interpretation??

When one writes something like this: "anyone can insist on any arbitrary interpretation of anything . . ." the idea is that "For any interpretation we could imagine . . ."

It's not saying that the interpretation in question is arbitrary.

Classical Science [PR] re Newtonian is PR.
For Modern Science [PR or PaR] or Quantum Mechanics [PR or PaR] it depend on the views of various scientists.

Philosophy of science isn't something that's primarily the purview of scientists, by the way. It's the purview of philosophers. (Which isn't to say that some scientists don't dabble in it, as they might also dabble in epistemology, ontology, etc., but philosophy of science is a philosophy field, not a field in some other discipline.)

At any rate, my comment about this (interpreting everything a particular way) seemed to fly over your head, as you're not actually commenting on what I said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.....

Can I take it from your evasion that you don't know which sort of statement that P2 was either?

Nope! I am very determined to settle the point.
That is why I am reading Rorty per your challenge and to throw back his views [if any] to counter your views.
If I missed your point, its your miscommunication.

Note my argument;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Arbitrary interpretation??

When one writes something like this: "anyone can insist on any arbitrary interpretation of anything . . ." the idea is that "For any interpretation we could imagine . . ."

It's not saying that the interpretation in question is arbitrary.

Whatever the imagination, the final countdown is whether what is claimed as real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible FSK.

You are not into the above but merely focused on words and its meaning & reference which is classical analytic philosophy as condemned by the later-Wittgenstein, Quine, Rorty, et.al.

Classical Science [PR] re Newtonian is PR.
For Modern Science [PR or PaR] or Quantum Mechanics [PR or PaR] it depend on the views of various scientists.

Philosophy of science isn't something that's primarily the purview of scientists, by the way. It's the purview of philosophers. (Which isn't to say that some scientists don't dabble in it, as they might also dabble in epistemology, ontology, etc., but philosophy of science is a philosophy field, not a field in some other discipline.)

I understand Philosophy of Science is not science per se.

However science per se in the case of general and classical science assumed in its FSK, there is a reality out there externally that is independent of the human mind - which is the philosophical realists' view.
As such all scientists involving this perspective of science will implicitly adopt the above assumption, thus from the philosophical perspective, these scientists are also implied philosophical realists.

As for modern science and quantum mechanics, scientists understood the role the observers played in justified scientific facts, but some still assumed there is an external reality independent of the mind [human conditions].
Einstein introduced the concept of the Observer's Effect, but he believed the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exists when humans are extinct. Einstein and his likes are philosophical realists from the philosophical perspective.

Some other scientists, on the other hand are philosophical anti-realists. e.g.
Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31424

At any rate, my comment about this (interpreting everything a particular way) seemed to fly over your head, as you're not actually commenting on what I said.

I would say your communication is not effective, thus you need to be more precise since you are representing from a very dogmatic paradigm.

You did not get what I stated about various scientists who could be PRs or PaRs, not because I did not communicate effectively, but it is that you were ignorant of the situation and I have to provide the additional knowledge.

[Peter Holmes]

.....

Can I take it from your evasion that you don't know which sort of statement that P2 was either?

Nope! I am very determined to settle the point.
That is why I am reading Rorty per your challenge and to throw back his views [if any] to counter your views.
If I missed your point, its your miscommunication.

Note my argument;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Pay attention, VA. You're trying to establish the conclusion: 'Therefore oughtness exists as part of reality'. So if one of your premises (here, P2) states that oughtness exists as part of reality, your argument is circular, or begs the question. Back to the drawing board.

[Skepdick]

Pay attention, VA. You're trying to establish the conclusion: 'Therefore oughtness exists as part of reality'. So if one of your premises (here, P2) states that oughtness exists as part of reality, your argument is circular, or begs the question. Back to the drawing board.

Thousands of years of human history. Hundreds of thousands of books on logic.
Computers in every damn home.
The world's knowledge at your fingertips.

Dumb Philosophers still can't tell the fucking difference between circularity and recursion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

[Peter Holmes]

VA - a question. Here's your argument:

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Did you mean this to be an example of recursion - of 'a thing [being] defined in terms of itself or of its type'?

If so, please can you explain how that works?

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=497706 time=1613815807 user_id=15099]
VA - a question. Here's your argument:

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Did you mean this to be an example of recursion - of 'a thing [being] defined in terms of itself or of its type'?

If so, please can you explain how that works?
[/quote]

It is indisputable that OUGHTs exist. It is irrational to posit that they came from anywhere but ISes - there is literally no other option. The end. Any discussion of circularity or recursion is irrelevant. This is why philosophy gets nowhere. We've got to start with logical necessity, not curious speculation and automatic skepticism.

[Peter Holmes]

VA - a question. Here's your argument:

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Did you mean this to be an example of recursion - of 'a thing [being] defined in terms of itself or of its type'?

If so, please can you explain how that works?

It is indisputable that OUGHTs exist. It is irrational to posit that they came from anywhere but ISes - there is literally no other option. The end. Any discussion of circularity or recursion is irrelevant. This is why philosophy gets nowhere. We've got to start with logical necessity, not curious speculation and automatic skepticism.

What evidence do you have for the existence of oughts? What and where is an ought, and in what way does it exist? Do you think oughts exist in the way that dogs and trees exist? Suggested answers: none, no idea and no. Like all supposed abstract things, oughts are metaphysical fictions.

[Skepdick]

What evidence do you have for the existence of oughts?

A brain.

What and where is an ought, and in what way does it exist?

In the way that we ought to kick you in the balls. Lets go for a beer and I'll provide you with the evidence.

[bahman]

VA - a question. Here's your argument:

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Did you mean this to be an example of recursion - of 'a thing [being] defined in terms of itself or of its type'?

If so, please can you explain how that works?

It is indisputable that OUGHTs exist. It is irrational to posit that they came from anywhere but ISes - there is literally no other option. The end. Any discussion of circularity or recursion is irrelevant. This is why philosophy gets nowhere. We've got to start with logical necessity, not curious speculation and automatic skepticism.

What evidence do you have for the existence of oughts? What and where is an ought, and in what way does it exist? Do you think oughts exist in the way that dogs and trees exist? Suggested answers: none, no idea and no. Like all supposed abstract things, oughts are metaphysical fictions.

Human is a rational being. I have discussed this here.

[Skepdick]

VA - a question. Here's your argument:

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Did you mean this to be an example of recursion - of 'a thing [being] defined in terms of itself or of its type'?

If so, please can you explain how that works?

Yours is the religion of deduction. You want premises form which to deduce conclusions.

Conveniently ignoring, overlooking or simply being ignorant of the fact that any and and all of the premises
which you deduce from have been obtained via induction.

Dumb Philosopher.

Deduction works in axiomatic systems such as logic and Mathematics.
Deduction doesn't work in non-axiomatic systems such as reality.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=497754 time=1613832375 user_id=17350]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=497706 time=1613815807 user_id=15099]
VA - a question. Here's your argument:

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Did you mean this to be an example of recursion - of 'a thing [being] defined in terms of itself or of its type'?

If so, please can you explain how that works?
[/quote]
Yours is the religion of deduction. You want premises form which to deduce conclusions.

Conveniently ignoring, overlooking or simply being ignorant of the fact that any and and all of the premises
which you deduce from have been obtained via induction.

Dumb Philosopher.
[/quote]

Anything explained in language will be recursive, and that doesn't matter. Certainty is always of sufficiency toward a particular end, not exhaustive for all possible ends.

[Skepdick]

Anything explained in language will be recursive, and that doesn't matter. Certainty is always of sufficiency toward a particular end, not exhaustive for all possible ends.

It's not about certainty. It's about the ability to absorb the cost of error.

90% certainty of making a profiting from bitcoin is not the same as 90% certainty of your parachute opening.

The 10% error margin has very different properties. Only one of those errors is a one-way street.

It's iterative game theory. If any decision prevents you from playing the game any further - you've fucked up.

[Peter Holmes]

If we cut open and examine a brain, among the many things we won't find in it are oughts. But, because we suffer from an ancient metaphysical delusion, we could rummage around in search of other supposed abstract things: thoughts, ideas, concepts, propositions, feelings, desires, intentions, consciousness, a mind. After all, why abandon magical thinking?

[FlashDangerpants]

.....

Can I take it from your evasion that you don't know which sort of statement that P2 was either?

Nope! I am very determined to settle the point.
That is why I am reading Rorty per your challenge and to throw back his views [if any] to counter your views.
If I missed your point, its your miscommunication.

Note my argument;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness' [justified empirically].
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

So P2 is an empirical statement that oughtness is observed by empirical means to exist as something empirically observable is it?
But not through any "FSK" of course, because the FSK is theoretical and it can only inherit any claim it has to truth from this argument.
And THAT would be a circular.

So how exactly are we, empirically, observing any quantitative units of ought?