Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:18 pm When one person issues a statement such as "I know that this dog has fleas" and another person says "I know that this dog has no fleas" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other must be false.

When one measurement apparatus issues a statement "The particle has left-spin" and another measurement apparatus issues the statement "The particle has right-spin" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other one must be false.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:18 pm That is part of what it means to have knowledge of whether or not a dog is flea ridden.

That's part of what it means to have knowledge of a particle's left or right spin.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:18 pm If your claim to moral knowledge is so weak that you can tell us you know drowning kittens to be wrong,

If your claim to objective knowledge is so weak that you can tell us that the particle has left-spin.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:18 pm but you cannot say that someone else who says it is right is thereby mistaken, then you are failing to meet the most basic requirements for knowing stuff.

but you cannot say that some other apparatus that says it is right is thereby mistaken, then you are failing to meet the most basic requirements of knowing stuff.

Philosophicus Retardicus.

If you are using a ruler to measure the table, you are also using the table to measure the ruler....

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:22 pm When one measurement apparatus issues a statement "The particle has left-spin" and another measurement apparatus issues the statement "The electron has right-spin" these claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other one must be false.

That would certainly be the case as long as they're measuring the same thing, in the same respect, etc.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:24 pm That would certainly be the case as long as they're measuring the same thing, in the same respect, etc.

And if they ARE measuring the same thing and arriving at different results, then we say "one is miscalibrated". And we re-calibrate it to say "the right thing".

Exactly like morality.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:25 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:24 pm That would certainly be the case as long as they're measuring the same thing, in the same respect, etc.

And if they ARE measuring the same thing and arriving at different results, then we say "one is miscalibrated". And we re-calibrate it.

Exactly like morality.

Except there's nothing objective to measure when it comes to morality.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:26 pm Except there's nothing objective to measure when it comes to morality.

There's nothing objective to measure about "left" vs "right" spin.

This is all just a very laborious way for us to come to the realization that some things are mental phenomena only.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:27 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:26 pm Except there's nothing objective to measure when it comes to morality.

There's nothing objective to measure about left vs right spin.

That wouldn't be a very good way to argue that there's something objective about morality, would it?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:27 pm This is all just a very laborious way for us to come to the realization that some things are mental phenomena only.

So if there's nothing objective to measure between "left" and "right" spin.

Is there something objective to measure between "phenomena" and "metaphenomena" ?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:28 pm That wouldn't be a very good way to argue that there's something objective about morality, would it?

Why not?

I can say it's objective, or say it's subjective.

No different to saying it's spinning "left" or spinning "right"

If you make the move of arguing that nothing is objective, then you kind of checkmate yourself when it comes to arguing that morality is objective.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:29 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:28 pm That wouldn't be a very good way to argue that there's something objective about morality, would it?

Why not?

I can say it's objective, or say it's subjective.

Okay, but you just said it's not objective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:29 pm If you make the move of arguing that nothing is objective, then you kind of checkmate yourself when it comes to arguing that morality is objective.

Good thing I didn't make such a move

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:30 pm Okay, but you just said it's not objective.

Yeah, I did!

Exactly like the measurement apparatus said the particle doesn't have left spin.

The objective/subjective distinction is incoherent.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:31 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:29 pm If you make the move of arguing that nothing is objective, then you kind of checkmate yourself when it comes to arguing that morality is objective.

Good thing I didn't make such a move

So what are you arguing is objective?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:32 pm So what are you arguing is objective?

I am arguing that what IS is a priori the objective/subjective distinction.