Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the contention here is;
You insist fact is fact -from the Philosophical Realist position
I insist value-of-fact is fact.

No I don't, I insist fact is fact from a common language position.

"Common language" it too common to be useful for philosophical deliberations.

The arrogance and claims of the 'philosophy of language' of the Anglo-American analytical philosophy, that it can nail truth, has run out of steam.

Those who use the term “philosophy of language” typically use it to refer to work within the field of Anglo-American analytical philosophy and its roots in German and Austrian philosophy of the early twentieth century.

While linguistic analysis does not dominate thinking in analytical philosophy as it did for much of the twentieth century, it remains a vibrant field that continues to develop. As in the early days of analytical philosophy, there is great interest in parallels between the content of utterances and the attribution of content to mental states, but many cognitive scientists have moved away from the classic analytical assumption that thoughts had a symbolic or sentence-like content.

This debate between minimalists and contextualists promises to be a lively one in the philosophy of language over the next few years.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#H5

Language is merely a tool of communication and nothing more.

What is truth is always dependent on the Framework and System of Knowledge, and the Later-Wittgenstein would agree with this point.

Realism/antirealism is a nonsensical sideboob issue with one camp arguing that reality is real-real-reality and the other that it is not-real-but-feels-reality. Both are descriptions of a world which will behave in exactly the way the world does behave, making them irrelevant to all matters and doubly so to this one where they wouldn't matter even if they predicted different worlds.

You are ignorant of the real contentions within Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism. Mine is the anti-realism of the Kantian school.

Note I raised a thread on the issue.

All Philosophies are Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

You cannot escape from the dichotomy in either adopting Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

How can you deny you do not belong to the above camp when the 'given object' stated in the above definition of Philosophical Realism, is the referent of what you claimed to be fact?

If not, explain how your position can be something else other than being a philosophical anti-realist.

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].

Again, this is your usual clumsiness in action. You are trying to hide the fact that sentiment is merely an element of the price, and you aren't doing it well.

How come you are so ignorant on this?
Take for example the Price of shares from the Dow Jones.
There are two main elements comprising the share price, i.e.

• 1. Net tangible asset [NTA] value of the shares
  2. The sentiment value above the NTA, represented by psychological elements.

I will argue even the NTA has elements of psychology at the fundamental level.

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.

Let's do a story shall we?
Geoff goes into a shop and buys a new couch for $1000.
That price is an economic fact.

At this point you now assume that Geoff values the couch at $1000 worth of sentiment.
but actually Geoff is buying the couch because his wife made him, and to get the $1000 dollars, Geoff worked double shifts for a week in his horrible job.
So what Geoff traded was also time and unhappiness, poorly measured by the $1000 which of course was a value placed on his time and unhappiness by the person who paid him for that time and unhappiness.
but the guy who employed Geoff to purchase his unhappiness wasn't really valuing that unhappiness at $1000, he was valuing something Geoff does at work.
and Geoff isn't actually valuing to couch at $1000, he is valuing his wife.
Oh, but what about his wife is he valuing. Is it her happiness, or is it her silence?
ctually it's neither, you see Geoff is a bad man who cheated on his wife, and the reason he has to buy a new couch is that he banged the babysitter on the other couch, so his wife is making him replace it or she will divorce him (according to complex reasons of her own which are hard to express in dollar terms).
So what Geoff values at $1000 is "not getting divorced". And hey' he got that rather cheaply, so perhaps that's what we are saying is science of fact wroth $1000?

But we don't know what else he would have paid do we? We only knwo what Geoff got charged in a single transaction. He would have been prepared to buy something much more expensive to not get divorced, so we don't have any information on the cash value of keeping his family, only that it is > $1000.

Seriously I can do this all day. The second you actually think about it at all, you reaslise the absurdity of linking a market transaction directly onto an emotion. I can't understand why you need help to undertand this shit.

The above is a strawman.
I did not imply nor assume,

• At this point you now assume that Geoff values the couch at $1000 worth of sentiment.

I agree with the following;
Geoff goes into a shop and buys a new couch for $1000.
That [final settled] price $1000 is an economic fact.

Assuming the price is normal pricing, i.e. no special offers, festive offers, shutting down sale, etc.

If there is a list price involved it could have been offered at $1400 and Geoff could have bargained the price down to $1000. Thus the final price in this case involved a lot of psychological elements of sentiments which may involved some of the points you mentioned above.

If the price is fixed at $1000 with no room for bargain, the price is also fixed based on the psychological state of the manager who set the price who has to judge whether people are willing to buy at that fixed price.

In general, what is the final price is based on the intersection of supply and demand principles which again involved psychological sentiments.
This is reduced to 'util' the principle of the utility function which reflect 'satisfaction' which is all psychology.

With all the above points, how can you deny there is no elements of sentiments with the economic fact of a price that is offered and accepted..

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%.

The demonstration failed. You should be able to tell really that such assertions are by nature undemonstrable anyway. You keep trying to just make up percentages and pretend they measure an actual probability. It's making me feel bad for you.

Failed because you are too thick to understand.
As I had stated, that a painting is priceless is a fact, i.e. a state-of-affairs in reality.
In other cases, paintings are traded and paid for which are also facts.

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.

There you go again: "imbued with elements". I mean the art world is also notorious for money laundering, which has a huge influence on prices, so how are you distilling your element from the others? How can you pretend to seperately measuring a thing that you unable to separate from all the other things it is mixed with?

Regardless of whether the paintings are used to launder money or otherwise, the dollars exchanged within the auction house or other recorded deal, they are a fact which included psychological elements i.e. sentiments. If money laundering is proven, it is a fact of money laundering and pricing.

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.

To be clear, you are defintely asserting that you will measure happiness by measuring something else entirely, and then calling it happiness. Just as fake as all your probabilities.

As I had stated there is no such thing as unconditional absolute happiness. Show me proof it exists?

Happiness is a general term, but surely it is distinctively different from sadness.
Thus as long as happiness is defined and accepted generally and differentiated from sadness, then justified within a specific Framework and System of Measuring Happiness, that would be a fact of happiness as qualified within the defined context.
Thus that fact of happiness must always be stated along with its context.

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."

Indeed. Now take a look at how they arrive at their calulations. It's a textbook example of taking data that is available and extrapolating from that to an intangible.

That is the point - we must always take a look at how they arrive at the calculations.
Nobody should simply accept the claim "the people of Bhutan are the happiest" without understanding the basis it is calculated.
Nonetheless the computed result is still a fact with a context grounded on a policy confirmed in their Parliament.

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.

Are you happy right now? Would you be happier or less happy if I just died right now? There's a thing that it means to "be happy", there just isn't any way to measure it, nor any meaning in the attempt to quantify such a state of being. You understand that, you just don't like it, it makes you unhappy in some way.

As stated above, there is no such thing as absolutely absolute happiness without it being related to a context.

Claiming one is happy without any reference to an acceptable Framework and System of Happiness is not a fact.
It is only a fact, if one's happiness is justified within an an acceptable Framework and System of Happiness.
As such there must be an established and officially recognized acceptable Framework and System of Happiness to start with.

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].

Empirical evidence is your problem. The artfulness of a painting isn't an empirical fact. I don't need a scientific basis for my assessment of any painting because I don't claim my opinion the matter to be an empirical fact of the painting's quality at all.

You missed my point. I'll just let it pass.

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.

Because the artfulness of the paining is not an empirical question, there is no valid factual claim to be made about that at all. You can make any number of claims you want to about how many people have how many opinions on the quality of a painting, and none of it amounts to empirical evidence about the artfulness of the pianting because there is no such thing as empirical artfulness. Thus there can be no relevant justifications for them, because relevance is impossible. And thus there can be no Framework of Knowledge because Knowledge is impossible.

There can be a million or billions of opinions on a painting, they are all useless until,
these opinions are frozen and objectified as fact when a price is paid for the painting or it is declared to be priceless.
Thus this objectified fact definitely include an elements of sentiment.

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?

The world of experience wouldn't be different either way though would it? The world we participate in and belong to is exactly whatever it is, and realism and antirealism are just two ways of conceptualising it. That's it, that's all it takes to move on from this diversionary tactic of yours. There is simply nothing that depends on the outcome of the realism debate. The act of measuring that table would still achieve exactly what it does in either case.

Like it or not, here you are adopting the Philosophical Realism stance, i.e. there is 'that table' out there existing independent of human conceptions and measurements.

Note the seriousness of the philosophical anti-realists' [Kant] that there is no pre-existing external table out there.
What is realized as table spontaneously is an emergent where the human person co-participate in that emergence.
I have raised a thread on this;

• Reality is an Emergence
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

Note the contrast between classical physics with modern Physics and QM. As in Quantum Physics, the observer is the co-creator of reality wherein he is part and parcel of.

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.

Yes, so what?
A fact-of-opinion is just a fact about opinion. It does nothing to answer my question to just tell me the same thing again.
Pornhub has more data on the subject of beauty than Miss World could possibly assemble, so if their data suggests different standards it must be them that are right and Miss World should be shut down as a fraudulent entity.

Bullshit again, I don't read of Pornhub pronouncing facts of beauty officially like what the Miss Universe Organization is doing.
I am sure the Miss Universe Organization would keep all the records of the judges and how they have given their rating and presumably this will be audited by some respectable auditors.

Playboy-Playmate of the Month could be regarded as fact since there is an official organization with their own criteria to choose who is the Playmate of the Month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... _the_Month

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.

Ok, so just for clairty, if two competing facts each assert the other is untrue, they are both true, just not entirely true.

There is no contradiction as long as they are in the different sense, i.e. the context to be given for users to make they make their decisions which is true.

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.

Information that "goes deeper than what is known" is called specualtion.

I agree this is speculation not fact, but is possible to be fact in the future.

"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.

That's a belief. Stop pretending it's a fact until it becomes one.

Where did I claim it is fact?
Base on current supporting facts, the above speculation could very likely be facts in the future.

As I had stated the quest to map the human genome was earlier denounced as impossible to establish whatever the fact.
But now the full map of the human genome is fact.
Similarly given the current progress, significant progress can be made with the Human Connectome Project whereby more refined moral facts supported by neural basis can be established.

[Skepdick]

The problem is not what everyone agrees on but what they dont and there is much in physics that is only speculative
Also science is inductive so what may be accepted as fact now may prove to be false in the future with new evidence

Also the debate between relative and objective is a false dichotomy where only one can actually be true
As it is not either / or but a combination of the two : some things are relative / some things are objective

As addressed in my previous post. Why is it a problem?

There are effective mechanisms for conflict resolution in the system.

What humans call 'objective' is only by consensus, and so by consensus - resolving conflicts peacefully is objectively preferable to resolving conflicts violently. Except when it isn't and violence becomes necessary.

[Skepdick]

Do all choices require emotion ? Do they provide better answers ? Can some choices not be purely logical ?
Would computers provide better answers if they could process information emotionally instead of logically ?

Logic does not and cannot offer you ANY values.

Empiricism can. I observe my emotional state to determine what I want and do not want.
I then use logic to calculate the consequences of my actions, then I consult my emotional state on whether the consequences are favourable or not.

All computers need goals. Even human computers.

[Skepdick]

Why does it always have to be a fixed point ? Is this the only way that relativism can actually be measured ?

Because relativism mandates well-ordering otherwise you can never assert X < Y or Y > X.

Now it would be more practical if all points were fixed but it can still be determined from non fixed ones too

This is not an exact science that we are dealing with here
Because it is messy and fuzzy with many shades of grey

When I speak about "fixed points" I mean it conceptually.

The well-ordered set gives you a continuum - you get the shades. But you also get a greatest and least elements with it.

Colloquially - it's the goal posts (that people keep moving) in arguments.

All of this boils down to this theorem in computation

If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

If you can make ANY assertion (decision) about ANYTHING - you have fixed point in your reasoning.

[FlashDangerpants]

Note the contention here is;
You insist fact is fact -from the Philosophical Realist position
I insist value-of-fact is fact.

No I don't, I insist fact is fact from a common language position.

"Common language" it too common to be useful for philosophical deliberations.

The arrogance and claims of the 'philosophy of language' of the Anglo-American analytical philosophy, that it can nail truth, has run out of steam.

Those who use the term “philosophy of language” typically use it to refer to work within the field of Anglo-American analytical philosophy and its roots in German and Austrian philosophy of the early twentieth century.

While linguistic analysis does not dominate thinking in analytical philosophy as it did for much of the twentieth century, it remains a vibrant field that continues to develop. As in the early days of analytical philosophy, there is great interest in parallels between the content of utterances and the attribution of content to mental states, but many cognitive scientists have moved away from the classic analytical assumption that thoughts had a symbolic or sentence-like content.

This debate between minimalists and contextualists promises to be a lively one in the philosophy of language over the next few years.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#H5

Language is merely a tool of communication and nothing more.

What is truth is always dependent on the Framework and System of Knowledge, and the Later-Wittgenstein would agree with this point.

I'm not going to get into yet another subject with you. That Wittegenstien claim is your new stupidest thing you ever wrote though.

Realism/antirealism is a nonsensical sideboob issue with one camp arguing that reality is real-real-reality and the other that it is not-real-but-feels-reality. Both are descriptions of a world which will behave in exactly the way the world does behave, making them irrelevant to all matters and doubly so to this one where they wouldn't matter even if they predicted different worlds.

You are ignorant of the real contentions within Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism. Mine is the anti-realism of the Kantian school.

Note I raised a thread on the issue.

All Philosophies are Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

You cannot escape from the dichotomy in either adopting Philosophical Realism or Philosophical Anti-Realism.

Oh my God, there is no end to the shit threads you can spawn is there? Fine, you can count me as anti-realist.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

How can you deny you do not belong to the above camp when the 'given object' stated in the above definition of Philosophical Realism, is the referent of what you claimed to be fact?

I wasn't making a realist claim. We describe as reality all of this (look around you) that we experience. There is no sense or meaning in describing some substrate as more real than reality. We apply a concept of facts and we speak of facts meaningfully only when we do so within that shared framework.

If not, explain how your position can be something else other than being a philosophical anti-realist.

Are we done with this silliness yet?

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].

Again, this is your usual clumsiness in action. You are trying to hide the fact that sentiment is merely an element of the price, and you aren't doing it well.

How come you are so ignorant on this?
Take for example the Price of shares from the Dow Jones.
There are two main elements comprising the share price, i.e.

• 1. Net tangible asset [NTA] value of the shares
  2. The sentiment value above the NTA, represented by psychological elements.

I will argue even the NTA has elements of psychology at the fundamental level.

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.

Let's do a story shall we?
Geoff goes into a shop and buys a new couch for $1000.
That price is an economic fact.

At this point you now assume that Geoff values the couch at $1000 worth of sentiment.
but actually Geoff is buying the couch because his wife made him, and to get the $1000 dollars, Geoff worked double shifts for a week in his horrible job.
So what Geoff traded was also time and unhappiness, poorly measured by the $1000 which of course was a value placed on his time and unhappiness by the person who paid him for that time and unhappiness.
but the guy who employed Geoff to purchase his unhappiness wasn't really valuing that unhappiness at $1000, he was valuing something Geoff does at work.
and Geoff isn't actually valuing to couch at $1000, he is valuing his wife.
Oh, but what about his wife is he valuing. Is it her happiness, or is it her silence?
ctually it's neither, you see Geoff is a bad man who cheated on his wife, and the reason he has to buy a new couch is that he banged the babysitter on the other couch, so his wife is making him replace it or she will divorce him (according to complex reasons of her own which are hard to express in dollar terms).
So what Geoff values at $1000 is "not getting divorced". And hey' he got that rather cheaply, so perhaps that's what we are saying is science of fact wroth $1000?

But we don't know what else he would have paid do we? We only knwo what Geoff got charged in a single transaction. He would have been prepared to buy something much more expensive to not get divorced, so we don't have any information on the cash value of keeping his family, only that it is > $1000.

Seriously I can do this all day. The second you actually think about it at all, you reaslise the absurdity of linking a market transaction directly onto an emotion. I can't understand why you need help to undertand this shit.

The above is a strawman.
I did not imply nor assume,

• At this point you now assume that Geoff values the couch at $1000 worth of sentiment.

I agree with the following;
Geoff goes into a shop and buys a new couch for $1000.
That [final settled] price $1000 is an economic fact.

Assuming the price is normal pricing, i.e. no special offers, festive offers, shutting down sale, etc.

If there is a list price involved it could have been offered at $1400 and Geoff could have bargained the price down to $1000. Thus the final price in this case involved a lot of psychological elements of sentiments which may involved some of the points you mentioned above.

If the price is fixed at $1000 with no room for bargain, the price is also fixed based on the psychological state of the manager who set the price who has to judge whether people are willing to buy at that fixed price.

In general, what is the final price is based on the intersection of supply and demand principles which again involved psychological sentiments.
This is reduced to 'util' the principle of the utility function which reflect 'satisfaction' which is all psychology.

With all the above points, how can you deny there is no elements of sentiments with the economic fact of a price that is offered and accepted..

So your facts are partial and you are unable to describe them very well, and you are unable to quantify anything at all.

I haven't denied that there is ever any element of sentiment in any transaction, I have shown you however that the simple fact of a price of an item in a specific trade is not a measurement of a sentiment. you are unbable to identify what the sentiment is, and you are unable to tell where there is some amount of any particular sentiment. yuo have no accurate measurement from which to extrapolate, and thus your extrapolations are just inaccurate, even if we are to pretend that they make any sense at all.

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.

Because the artfulness of the paining is not an empirical question, there is no valid factual claim to be made about that at all. You can make any number of claims you want to about how many people have how many opinions on the quality of a painting, and none of it amounts to empirical evidence about the artfulness of the pianting because there is no such thing as empirical artfulness. Thus there can be no relevant justifications for them, because relevance is impossible. And thus there can be no Framework of Knowledge because Knowledge is impossible.

There can be a million or billions of opinions on a painting, they are all useless until,
these opinions are frozen and objectified as fact when a price is paid for the painting or it is declared to be priceless.
Thus this objectified fact definitely include an elements of sentiment.

Elements of...

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.

Yes, so what?
A fact-of-opinion is just a fact about opinion. It does nothing to answer my question to just tell me the same thing again.
Pornhub has more data on the subject of beauty than Miss World could possibly assemble, so if their data suggests different standards it must be them that are right and Miss World should be shut down as a fraudulent entity.

Bullshit again, I don't read of Pornhub pronouncing facts of beauty officially like what the Miss Universe Organization is doing.
I am sure the Miss Universe Organization would keep all the records of the judges and how they have given their rating and presumably this will be audited by some respectable auditors.

You think a beauty pageant is actually a scientific investigation of beauty?
Seriously?

Why am I dong this conversation with such a pissant? This reflects badly on me really. I am to blame for being involved in this at all. I think I should stop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why am I dong this conversation with such a pissant? This reflects badly on me really. I am to blame for being involved in this at all. I think I should stop.

There is no need for those silly comments.
Its your discretion, if you don't like it, then stop -else you are poisoning yourself with unnecessary cortisols when you're self-provoked then wallow in those silly comments and thoughts.
I bet there is an increased in your level of cortisols when you make those silly comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol

As far as I am concern, the 'currency' of this forum is rational sound arguments, I will continue to trade as long as there are counter arguments against my views.

On the point re measurement of sentiments, it is not a problem with Share Prices where,

Sentiment in Share Price = Market Value - NTA.

The NTA can be easily calculated from the Balance Sheet of the company at any one time.
I wonder whether you understand the concept of NTA, i.e. net tangible assets?

The currency of the USA is the Dollar is a fact.
The Dollar was but not not represented by God or another asset.
Thus the existence and the value of the Dollar as a fact or state-of-affair is based on 100% sentiment, i.e. based on trust and confidence of the US Government by those who hold the dollar.

Oh my God, there is no end to the shit threads you can spawn is there? Fine, you can count me as anti-realist.

It is unlikely if you believe fact is fact and is not value, for you to be an anti-realist.
Just curious, which school of anti-realism [idealism] do you belong to?

Spawn??
It is critical and necessary, it show the level and extent of details I would go to establish rigor.

[surreptitious57]

Every single moral issue has an agreeable outcome

Two people can have diametrically opposite views on a moral issue with neither of them considering the others position
They may not physically fight each other over it but the incompatibility means the issue in question remains unresolved

[surreptitious57]

If you are a honest relativist you will tell me there has been zero improvement in the I0000 years of human history

If you can determine that society is better - then morality is objective

I can categorically state as a moral relativist that there has been very significant improvement in the last I0000 years of human history
And I do that by simply comparing any two periods of human history from within that time frame
This is so demonstrably true that it is not even an opinion but actual fact that cannot be disputed
And so because of this it is something both moral relativists and objectivists can actually agree on

[Skepdick]

Two people can have diametrically opposite views on a moral issue with neither of them considering the others position
They may not physically fight each other over it but the incompatibility means the issue in question remains unresolved

Does it have to be "solved"? Why?

What happens if it remains "unsolved"?

[Skepdick]

I can categorically state as a moral relativist that there has been very significant improvement in the last I0000 years of human history

I am sorry. "Improvement"?

What does that word mean in a relativist's vocabulary?

And I do that by simply comparing any two periods of human history from within that time frame
This is so demonstrably true that it is not even an opinion but actual fact that cannot be disputed
And so because of this it is something both moral relativists and objectivists can actually agree on

So you have a sense of "better" and "worse"?

Surely you can say that there has been CHANGE in the last 10000 years of human history. Things are different now - no worse; no better.

And yet, you can TELL (somehow, against some yardsick) that the present is better than the past.

You aren't a relativist, stop lying to yourself.

[surreptitious57]

So you have a sense of better and worse ?

Surely you can say that there has been CHANGE in the last I0000 years of human history

I use the same argument you use which is to ask what period of history would you have rather lived in other than this one ?
Change can therefore be measured qualitatively which is why I would rather be alive now than at some other random time

[surreptitious57]

Improvement ?

What does that word mean in a relativists vocabulary ?

It means the quality of human existence is something that can definitely be compared over time
And law and education and medicine are three examples of how it can be measured qualitatively

[Skepdick]

I use the same argument you use which is to ask what period of history would you have rather lived in other than this one ?
Change can therefore be measured qualitatively which is why I would rather be alive now than at some other random time

I am only using the argument to illustrate to relativists that their preference is measurable; and therefore - objective.

Change can be measured - obviously.
The past and the future can be compared - obviously.

But without a qualitative idea of "betterness" and "worseness" you can't possibly assert that the future is better than the past.

[Skepdick]

It means the quality of human existence is something that can definitely be compared over time
And law and education and medicine are three examples of how it can be measured qualitatively

Q.E.D you can measure it. You have reproduced my measurement - we agree on the result. That's "peer review".

As far as I can tell the "betterness" of the future is a collectively agreed-upon fact.

What makes you a "relativist" then?

[surreptitious57]

The disagreement between us is purely semantic and is therefore rather superfluous
You call it objective and I call it relative but we both agree on the actual substance