Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 7:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2023 4:35 am
Note my general syllogism [edited];
P1 What we call a fact exists and emerges from within a
human-based framework and system of knowledge.
P2 There is a
human-based morality framework and system of knowledge.
C Therefore, there are
human-based FSK moral facts.
Okay. Can I assume this is it - that you're happy that this formulation represents your position?
Note I stated, that is my
general syllogism of how there are objective FSK moral facts.
I wrote,
1. The above syllogism is valid that moral FSK facts exist.
And you agree that validity has nothing to do with the truth of premises and conclusions.
2. I have not justified the soundness [credibility and reliability] of my objective moral FSK in the above but have done elsewhere.
No, you have not done so. I and others have patiently explained why your argument is fallacious. And you have stubbornly ignored these refutations. Your P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true.
Don't give that usual "I and others" crap.
You mean others' like those clowns and philosophical gnats like ..??
There are loads of stupid counters and comments.
Don't be a coward, show me the specific counter you claimed my argument is fallacious.
If anything even slightly significant I would have opened a new thread [as evident] to ensure I have covered and countered your argument thoroughly.
How can my P2 be false when there are human-based scientific FSK.
As such there can be human-based moral FSK and any other human-based FSKs.
3. Note why I introduce a general syllogism is because the soundness, i.e. objectivity can range from 0.001/100 [theistic moral FSK] to 99.99/100 [credible and reliable].
Your fabrication of objectivity-percentages is utterly laughable, and unworthy of serious attention.
You cannot understand my point re objectivity because you are stuck with the delusional objectivity grounded on your delusional philosophical realism of mind-independence.
You are countering my views based on ignorance reflected in your absence of references.
Note "Objectivity comes in degrees" from a reputable source, i.e. SEP.
Objectivity is a value.
To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better.
Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it.
The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/#:
Since I claimed the human-based scientific-FSK is the most credible and reliable, thus acting as a standard [say 99.99/100], then other FSKs will have lesser degrees of objectivity than the standard.
What is wrong with this? Just don't blabber, give me solid reasons why you disagree with this.
In addition, the rating of objectivity in terms of degrees can leverage pragmatic utility and progress.
X. The reason why you reject any semblance of truth in my syllogism is because you are banking on your illusory 'what is fact' based on philosophical realism, i.e. independence from human conditions.
To clarify: your P1 is false, because what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. And that has nothing to do with knowledge or description. So your claim that what we call a fact emerges from and exists within a framework and system of knowledge is false. It mistakes a description for the described, which elsewhere you reject as irrational.
Strawman again.
I have stated many times [you acknowledged] the description is not the-described.
My PI takes into account "the description is not the-described".
I have explained a "1000" times there is a prior process of realization within a FSK of the fact before it is perceived, known and described.
This process of realization is conditioned [note determination] upon the 13 billion years of 'history' that follow and culminating in the human realization of what is fact. [You cannot deny this.] This realization process is not the perception, knowing and description of the fact.
Note I have raised [for my own sake] more than 250 threads in this Ethical Theory Section supporting why there are objective moral facts and that morality [human element] is objective. You have not countered the main ones.
Note: I and others have falsified every one of your claims of this kind, and refuted every one of your arguments. And whereas we have taken the time to address and challenge your ideas, you have never actually conceded even one rational point made against your nonsense.
Don't give me that cowardly "I and others" crap.
Why should I concede if your arguments are never convincing.
Your arguments are all grounded on the delusional philosophical realism, thus whatever conclusion you arrive thereupon are delusional.
Y. Without going into the objective truths of P1, the test is;
If you reject P1, then you are rejecting objective scientific facts emerging from a human-based scientific FSK.
Nonsense. The very credibility of a discipline, such as neuroscience, depends on its objectivity - its ability to identify and describe facts, such as the existence in reality - not in a description! - of neurons and synaptic events. Those things and events don't emerge from and exist within a description. That is lunacy.
Nonsense? you are exposing your own ignorance.
Note again, you admitted I am agree with "the description is not the-described."
Why are you strawmaning me with this point?
As such, there must be other basis I relied upon to claim 'facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK' as in the human-based-scientific FSK.
PH:
The very credibility of a discipline, such as neuroscience, depends on its objectivity - its ability to identify and describe facts, such as the existence in reality
You think it is easy as identify and describe facts?
For any scientific facts to be realized and emerge, there must first be a
human-based scientific FSK which comprised a set of complex processes from abduction, hypothesizing, verifying, justifying, testing, etc.
This complex processes entail the participation of scientists who are human.
In addition, these human-scientists and those who have faith in the scientists are conditioned [determined] with conditions traced to the Big Bang 13 billion years ago.
As such, in this case, humans are the co-participators [co-creators] that enable the realization and emergence of the human-based scientific fact.
As such, whatever are human-based scientific neuroscience facts of neurons and synaptic events are not purely independent features of reality which you claimed are just-is, being so and that is the case. Such facts are illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.
Point is you cannot claim neurons and synaptic events exist without its qualification to the human-based scientific FSK and upon humanity [traceable to the Big Bang]. You just cannot ignore these human-based elements in relation to the realization of facts.
