Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 12:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 10:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:00 pm
Yes. Even if all that science can produce is 'polished opinions', they are opinions
about something. And that
something is what we call reality. The reason why natural science is our most credible or reliable inquiry method is that it gives us verfiable information about that reality.
That is why I have been asking you, what is
that-something that we call reality?
Don't you realize that ever since rational philosophy emerged within human consciousness [since >2,000 to 10,000 years ago], the mainstream philosophers had failed to determine what
that-something-called-Reality is.
This is what prompted the wiser Russell after very in depth rational exploration of what is reality, to exclaim the truth, i.e.
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?" 
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814
Long before that Kant had already realized the
futility of determining what
that-something-called-Reality independent of human conditions, is. Thus he introduced his Copernican Revolution.
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.
A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
CPR B-xvi-ii
Long [>2000 years] before Kant, the Buddhists were already realizing the impossibility of establishing and determining what
that-something-called-Reality is. They also hypothesis the pursuit of such an illusory
that-something-called-Reality is due to human psychology and desperation.
Some of the ancients Greeks philosophers also realized this truth that there is
NO such something-called-Reality which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Like I say, you are like the Flat-Earthers who just don't have the ability to understand the reality of a Round Earth like the Round-Earthers do.
(And, btw, natural science says absolutely nothing about moral rightness and wrongness, simply because those aren't features of the reality that science studies.)
I have already explained, the Moral FSK borrowed scientific facts to process and output objective moral principles. I have already explained that process but I believed it just passed tru you due to your incompetence to grasp the point.
What you are doing is projecting our (necessarily human) way of perceiving, 'knowing' - and therefore describing - reality onto reality itself. But such things as the big bang, and the chemical composition of water, have nothing to do with 'the human conditions' or our ways of describing those features of reality. That idea demonstrates a blindingly obvious and fundamental confusion.
The above is a strawman.
You are merely projecting and imposing your limited knowledge of reality onto what I intended to explain.
In this case, analogically and relatively you are like a kindergarten kid trying to teach Einstein on what is Physics about.
The way out to reconcile the above two opposing points is tracing the root cause to psychology & biology then only philosophy [metaphysics, ontology, epistemology].
No, the way out is to understand the following.
1 If there is no reality-as-it-really-is - if there are no things-in-themselves -
then the claim that we cannot perceive, know or describe reality-as-it-really-is, or things-in-themselves, is redundant. It is to invent an impossibility, and then deny its possibility. Kant got it terribly wrong.
2 There is no way for a scientific (or factual) 'is' to entail a moral 'ought'. It just can't be done, without begging the question.
That's a Strawman. You got it wrong again.
Point is people who are Philosophical Realists [you for example] are the ones who claim that there are things-in-themselves, i.e. things existing absolutely independent of the human conditions.
What Kant and the likes stated there is no such things as things-in-themselves or a thing-in-itself and to reify it as really existing is an
illusion.
Note I mentioned thing-in-itself [things-in-themselves] as ILLUSIONS many times [didn't you read & get it?].
Since it is an
illusion, it implied it is not real so there is nothing to be know about it as real nor can it [an illusion] be described in the real sense. You missed out a lot of relevant nuances on the issue.
There is no way, Kant and likes would claim,
then the claim that we cannot perceive, know or describe reality-as-it-really-is,
in the
ultimate sense [not conventional sense].
The point is people like you are naturally [evolutionarily] driven by desperate psychology to insist upon the existence of thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves as real and thus grasping at illusory things that are not real in the
ultimate sense [not conventional sense].
2 There is no way for a scientific (or factual) 'is' to entail a moral 'ought'. It just can't be done, without begging the question.
I have NEVER claim scientific facts
by themselves as [
is-es] directly entail a moral 'ought'.
What you should counter is,
Scientific facts by themselves cannot entail moral oughts, even when processed via a Moral FSK?
Give your justification 'why not' if processed via a Moral FSK, note '
Moral FSK'?
I have already explained with examples and analogies, objective moral principles 'ought' are derived as 'output' from a
credible Moral FSK [like a Moral Factory] with inputs from scientific facts, other evidences and philosophical reasoning. Note, such moral oughts are never enforceable but merely used as guides for moral progress.
Here is Kant with more severe warnings on how you and the likes get deluded with the illusion that there are things and reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
- And secondly, both it and its opposite must involve no mere artificial Illusion such as at once vanishes upon detection,
but a natural and unavoidable Illusion,
which even after it has ceased to beguile still continues to delude though not to deceive us,
and which though thus capable of being rendered harmless can never be eradicated. B449
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
..the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion,
is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism. B670
But there is no end to such discussions, unless we can penetrate to the True Cause of the Illusion by which even the wisest are deceived.B731
Kant is very serious and thorough on how people like you are deluded [ultimate senses, not conventional sense].
The problem here is you don't even have the competence to understand [not necessary agree] what Kant is talking about to begin to contribute any rational counter to his claims.
What you have always done is merely throwing childish jabs without any sound counter arguments.