The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Skepdick]

Hence why we shouldn't be too "charitable" here and say, "Oh, well, surely he meant that statements can be about objective things, but the statement itself isn't objective." Because the looseness is leading you to conclude that what counts as well-being, as well as striving to survive as opposed to alternatives, are objectively determined somehow rather than being "opinions."

There is no objective determination in non-determination.

There's only measurement and instrument calibration.

My thermometer says the water is 90 degrees.
Yours says it's 85 degrees.

Whose thermometer is uncalibrated? How do we calibrate?

[Terrapin Station]

Hence why we shouldn't be too "charitable" here and say, "Oh, well, surely he meant that statements can be about objective things, but the statement itself isn't objective." Because the looseness is leading you to conclude that what counts as well-being, as well as striving to survive as opposed to alternatives, are objectively determined somehow rather than being "opinions."

There is no objective determination in non-determination.

I don't get the "in non-determination" part.

There's only measurement and instrument calibration.

My thermometer says the water is 90 degrees.
Yours says it's 85 degrees.

Whose thermometer is uncalibrated? How do we calibrate?

Ideally you use whatever we've decided to use for the standard measurement.

What would you say your comment has to do with my comment to Veritas, by the way? You're not arguing that what counts as well-being is objective in the sense that he's using or the sense that I'd use, are you? Or arguing that he's not going off-track by the loose usage of "objective statements"?

[FlashDangerpants]

Ok, now persuade Henry Quirk and Vertiginous Aquarium that you have used your powers of measuring 1 bit of information to discover that their FSK things are factually incorrect.

What does this have to do with persuasion?

Either their measurement apparatus returns the same result or it doesn't.

That it returns different values at different times/measurement it doesn't mean it's not being measured.
Maybe they decide to use my instrument to calibrate theirs - who knows?

So there is no point at which you are able to look at any moral fact claim and say that it is erroneous.

Yet you appear to be quite convinced that you are right, and also that by virtue of your being right, my statements to the contrary must be wrong. You are not telling me here that you have measured one bit of information that I am right when I say there is no such thing as moral fact, and another bit of information that you are right when you say that there is indeed moral fact.

[Skepdick]

I don't get the "in non-determination" part.

Determine the temperature of boiling water.

And your immediate question should be: Celsius, Kelvin or Fahrenheit?

Water didn't have a "temperature" until we invented "temperature".

Water was cool, warm, hot etc.

Ideally you use whatever we've decided to use for the standard measurement.

Precisely. Consensus.

Otherwise you can have an eternal debate between two philosophers:

Philosophical A: You make your thermometer say the same as mine!
Philosophical B: No, you make yours thermometer to say the same as mine!

What would you say your comment has to do with my comment to Veritas, by the way? You're not arguing that what counts as well-being is objective in the sense that he's using or the sense that I'd use, are you? Or arguing that he's not going off-track by the loose usage of "objective statements"?

The "objectivity" of temperature is derived by consensus.

Exactly like well-being.

[Skepdick]

So there is no point at which you are able to look at any moral fact claim and say that it is erroneous.

That's circular. What do you mean by "erroneous" ?

Do you have an error-theory?

Yet you appear to be quite convinced that you are right, and also that by virtue of your being right, my statements to the contrary must be wrong.

Yeah. A lot like your apparatus gives one reading and mine gives another.

Absent of context/consequence there's no "wrong answer" to "What's the objective spin of an electron?"

It's whatever the meter says. Up; or down.

The question of whether the meter is "correctly calibrated" is a different matter altogether.

You are not telling me here that you have measured one bit of information that I am right when I say there is no such thing as moral fact, and another bit of information that you are right when you say that there is indeed moral fact.

I am telling you THAT I have measured. You laid forth the criterion that any repeatable measurement is "objective".

So my measurement is objective. In addition to the measurement I also gave you the instruction manual, so that you can calibrate your meter.

You don't have to calibrate it. You can totally use your own metric/standard.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't get the "in non-determination" part.

Determine the temperature of boiling water . . .

Okay, but I still don't get what "in non-determination" was referring to.

And your immediate question should be: Celsius, Kelvin or Fahrenheit?

Water didn't have a "temperature" until we invented "temperature".

Water was cool, warm, hot etc.

You're conflating measurements and what we're measuring here. Water has a temperature. "Cool, warm, hot, etc." are ways of talking about the temperature that are simply less precise.

Precisely. Consensus.

It could be a dictatorial stipulation. It's just that measurements are constructed. What they're measuring isn't constructed. If we have two measuring devices that don't match each other, and they're measuring the same thing (before you get confused by that again, ONE thing, at one spatiotemporal location), then it's because there's some significant difference in the way the devices are working, or their scale, or whatever. So if we want them to be the same (similar in that case, or the same (one spatiotemporal thing a la someone's abstraction)), we need to get them to match whatever scale, which we can only check by getting them to work similarly relative to measuring the same thing.

The "objectivity" of temperature is derived by consensus.

No, it isn't. Agreeing on some measurement is arrived at via agreement. What we're measuring isn't a matter of agreement, and whether it's objective isn't at all a matter of agreement.

For well-being, there is no objective well-being to measure. That's just the point here. For temperature, there IS objective temperature to measure.

[Skepdick]

Okay, but I still don't get what "in non-determination" was referring to.

Ontological non-determination. Particles don't have "left" spin; or "right" spin. Those are human designations.

You can't determine whether a particle is spinning left; or spinning right. You can determine that it's behaving in two different ways and so you designate one behaviour as "left spin" and another behaviour as "right spin".

And so you can trivially manufacture two different measurement devices. Both of which answer the question "Is this particle spinning right?"

Machine A answers "yes".
Machine B answers "no".

Given that they measured the same thing, but give different answers to the same question, would you say that the two machines "disagree" ?

You're conflating measurements and what we're measuring here. Water has a temperature. "Cool, warm, hot, etc." are ways of talking about the temperature that are simply less precise.

No, I am not. You are conflating your experience with the cause of the experience with the digitization of the experience into "cold", "warm" and "hot"; or X degrees, Y degrees and Z degrees.

I am focusing on HOW we measure and HOW we calibrate our instruments when they return different results.

It could be a dictatorial stipulation.

The counter-part to which is tacit agreement. The point is that everybody has accepted a unit of measurement. Somehow.

It's just that measurements are constructed. What they're measuring isn't constructed.

Immaterial If the answer to an "objective" yes/no question can depends on the calibration of the equipment.

If we have two measuring devices that don't match each other, and they're measuring the same thing (before you get confused by that again, ONE thing, at one spatiotemporal location), then it's because there's some significant difference in the way the devices are working, or their scale, or whatever. So if we want them to be the same, we need to get them to match whatever scale, which we can only check by getting them to work similarly relative to measuring the same thing.

They ARE measuring "the same thing". They are just arriving with a different result!

They are measuring "Does this particle have left spin?"

One measures "yes"
The measures "no"

And since the expectation is that measurements "agree" then one of those devices requires re-calibration. Which one? The one that's not adhering to the standard.

No, it isn't. Agreeing on some measurement is arrived at via agreement. What we're measuring isn't a matter of agreement, and whether it's objective isn't at all a matter of agreement.

What you are measuring is thermal energy - it's a continuous quantity. And even by talking about "quantities" I am invoking Mathematics/numbers.

Continuous quantities have no value, unless measured.

For well-being, there is no objective well-being to measure. That's just the point here. For temperature, there IS objective temperature to measure.

Oh really? Tell me HOW you measure "temperature". Objectively. Without appealing to any of the accepted standards.

But that's not even the fucking point!

If an object can have "cold temperature" and "hot temperature", then why can't you have "well being" and "non-well being"?

[Skepdick]

For well-being, there is no objective well-being to measure. That's just the point here. For temperature, there IS objective temperature to measure.

My point briefly: Unless you have some shared standard for measurement, no there isn't!

Say you are observing two idiot-philosophers debate.

Idiot A enters the bath. Says "cold".
His self-made thermometer says 43152763476152374623475 degrees (non-standard units)

Idiot B enters bathtub. Says "hot".
His self-made thermometer says 35 degrees (non-standard units)

You are watching both of those idiots and their thermometers.

What have you learned about the water temperature? Neither of them has died, so you can probably guess a range. But beyond that?

Unless you trust in the reliability of your measurements you could be using a thermometer to measure the water, or the water to measure the thermometer.

[Terrapin Station]

Just fyi, I'm not going to do this where posts keep getting longer and longer.

Ontological non-determination. Particles don't have "left" spin; or "right" spin. Those are human designations . . .

I don't know enough about what is really going on re spin (or why we believe that such and such is really going on) to be able to comment on this. If there were reason to believe that particles are really spinning (rotating relative to an axis), then presumably there would be right versus left spin from a given point of reference, but I just don't know enough about it to say.

Given that they measured the same thing, but give different answers to the same question, would you say that the two machines "disagree" ?

Sure, as a manner of speaking.

No, I am not. You are conflating your experience with the cause of the experience

No, just the opposite of this. I'm saying that the cause of the experience IS NOT THE SAME as the experience (when we're talking about temperature).

with the digitization of the experience into "cold", "warm" and "hot"; or X degrees, Y degrees and Z degrees.

The particles in question will have different relative motion to each other, relative to other motion (for example, relative to the relative motion of the sun and Earth). We have nothing to do with that being the case (well, aside from us heating or cooling things). It's what we're measuring. And we can do so with more or less precision.

I am focusing on HOW we measure and HOW we calibrate our instruments when they return different results.

Which is fine as long as there's something to measure.

Immaterial If the answer to an "objective" yes/no question can depends on the calibration of the equipment.

Which has to depend on there being something to measure in the first place. If we're not talking about something that we're measuring, then there's a problem, and we're not talking about something objective.

Continuous quantities have no value,

They have dynamic, relative motions. That's what we're measuring. It's just that the measurement is a "snapshot" of a "point" in that dynamic, relative motion.

Oh really? Tell me HOW you measure "temperature". Objectively. Without appealing to any of the accepted standards.

The point was that there's something objective to measure in one case and not in the other case. The point isn't that the measurement is objective. Again, we can't conflate measurement and what we're measuring.

[Terrapin Station]

For well-being, there is no objective well-being to measure. That's just the point here. For temperature, there IS objective temperature to measure.

My point briefly: Unless you have some shared standard for measurement, no there isn't!

Say you are observing two idiot-philosophers debate.

Idiot A enters the bath. Says "cold".
His self-made thermometer says 43152763476152374623475 degrees (non-standard units)

Idiot B enters bathtub. Says "hot".
His self-made thermometer says 35 degrees (non-standard units)

You are watching both of those idiots and their thermometers.

What have you learned about the water temperature? Neither of them has died, so you can probably guess a range. But beyond that?

Unless you trust in the reliability of your measurements you could be using a thermometer to measure the water, or the water to measure the thermometer.

What anyone says, what anyone measures, has nothing to do with the fact that for temperature, there is something objective to measure.

If that weren't the case, then it would be difficult to say what we're even talking about with measurements of temperature. It would just be arbitrary thermometer readings that have nothing at all to do with anything else (except maybe other thermometer readings). To measure something, there has to be something we're measuring, obviously.

[Skepdick]

I don't know enough about what is really going on re spin (or why we believe that such and such is really going on) to be able to comment on this. If there were reason to believe that particles are really spinning (rotating relative to an axis), then presumably there would be right versus left spin from a given point of reference, but I just don't know enough about it to say.

Key word "FROM A POINT OF REFERENCE".

Sure, as a manner of speaking.

I wouldn't. I say that they agree in measurement, but disagree in expression.

Unless there's some other way to determine "agreement".

And we can do so with more or less precision.

Given a measurement apparatus that was SOMEHOW calibrated. Sure.

It's the calibration that I care about.

Which is fine as long as there's something to measure.

Is the water cold? That's a yes/no answer. Measurement.

Which has to depend on there being something to measure in the first place. If we're not talking about something that we're measuring, then there's a problem, and we're not talking about something objective.

I am measuring well-being. Yes/no.

Are you healthy? Yes/no.
Are you well? Yes/no.

They have dynamic, relative motions.

I know what "cold" and "hot" are relative to (each other). What's temperature relative to?

The point was that there's something objective to measure in one case and not in the other case.

Is there something objective to measure? Yes (measures Terrapin Station).

The point isn't that the measurement is objective. Again, we can't conflate measurement and what we're measuring.

Are we conflating measurement with what we are measuring? Yes (measures Terrapin Station)

[Skepdick]

What anyone says, what anyone measures, has nothing to do with the fact that for temperature, there is something objective to measure.

Is there something objective to measure? Yes! (measures Terrapin Station).

What is there to measure?

If that weren't the case, then it would be difficult to say what we're even talking about with measurements of temperature.

I's not at all difficult when you invent the measurement/language to talk about it.

It would just be arbitrary thermometer readings that have nothing at all to do with anything else (except maybe other thermometer readings). To measure something, there has to be something we're measuring, obviously.

Does there have to be something to be measured in order to measure it? Yes! (measured Terrapin Station)

Without social consensus science is fucked.

[Terrapin Station]

Key word "FROM A POINT OF REFERENCE".

Yes. All properties are what they are, all states of affairs are what they are relative to reference points. This in no way suggests a lack of objectivity or anything like that. "Reference point" isn't a code for "perspective of a person" or something like that.

I wouldn't. I say that they agree in measurement, but disagree in expression.

It's not clear to me what the difference would be here.

Is the water cold? That's a yes/no answer. Measurement.

Well, it's relative to what the person considers cold, but sure, there's something objective to measure there. The relative motion of the water molecules.

I am measuring well-being. Yes/no.

And just the point here is that there is no objective well-being.

Are you healthy? Yes/no.
Are you well? Yes/no.

There's also no objective "healthy" or "well." It depends on what someone considers healthy or well. There are objective states of, say, having pancreatic cancer versus not having pancreatic cancer. That one is considered "healthy" or "well" and the other isn't isn't something objective.

You could say the same thing about temperature--what's considered "temperature" isn't something objective, and that's certainly the case, but it's just a sound we're applying to a particular objective phenomenon--relative motion of particles (in water, or in the air, or whatever).

We could say "we're going to apply the term 'healthy' to 'not having pancreatic cancer," which would be fine, but that wouldn't enable any normative connotation of "healthy," and someone couldn't be wrong by saying, "I consider 'healthy' 'having pancreatic cancer' (especially where I'm using 'healthy' with a normative connotation)" . . . and that's not something that anyone who wants to say "That's objective well-being/objective healthiness" is comfortable allowing, because they want to select just one set of possibilities for a normative connotation.

[Skepdick]

Yes. All properties are what they are, all states of affairs are what they are relative to reference points. This in no way suggests a lack of objectivity or anything like that. "Reference point" isn't a code for "perspective of a person" or something like that.

It is in physics. Is why it's called a reference frame.

It's not clear to me what the difference would be here.

NONE. That's precisely why philosophical disagreement is vacuous. You can say whatever you want bout anything.

What does it mean to "disagree" except to say different things about the same measurement?

And just the point here is that there is no objective well-being.

There is no objective temperature either. Not until you quantise it!

What is temperature. Objectively? If you use the word "relative" in your explanation I demand you specify relative to what.

There's also no objective "healthy" or "well." It depends on what someone considers healthy or well.

So then there's no objective temperature either. Show it to me.

There are objective states of, say, having pancreatic cancer versus not having pancreatic cancer. That one is considered "healthy" or "well" and the other isn't isn't something objective.

You mean like "left spin" and "right spin"?

You could say the same thing about temperature--what's considered "temperature" isn't something objective, and that's certainly the case, but it's just a sound we're applying to a particular objective phenomenon--relative motion of particles (in water, or in the air, or whatever).

Ahahahahahaha! RELATIVE TO WHAT?

We could say "we're going to apply the term 'healthy' to 'not having pancreatic cancer," which would be fine, but that wouldn't enable any normative connotation of "healthy,"

Then why does it enable normative connotation of "left spin" and "right spin" ?

ALL scientific measurements are "normative connotation". Standards.

Now if you could give me the normative standard for distinguishing "subjective " from "objective" measurements - that would be grand.

[Terrapin Station]

It is in physics. Is why it's called a reference frame.

Reference frames in physics aren't person-dependent, and there's a reason that I don't use "reference frame"--because I don't want to suggest that I'm merely pledging allegiance to the standard view of reference frames in physics. I'm rather expressing my own, rather idiosyncratic ontological views.

What does it mean to "disagree" except to say different things about the same measurement?

You can disagree on what's the case, not simply what you say about what's the case.

There is no objective temperature either.

Sigh. Then what are we measuring?