Philosophy Now Forum

All I see here is people trying to manufacture moral fact out of something. Looking for some special way to describe their own personal belief system as the factual one. And most importantly in my view, only thinking about what they can make moral fact out of.

But under the most rudimentary examination, it always seems to be the case that their shoddily constructed 'facts' don't do any of the work that a fact is supposed to do. When did things that can't be used to resolve errors get to be called facts?

• Belinda tells us that she has her moral facts, and you can have yours, and that leaves no scope for resolution of mistakes there.

• Vestigial Armpit just uses FSKs with nothing to back them but an opinion survey and a bandwagon fallacy, nothing requires resolution in the event of conflict, he just offers a randomly generated "credibility" score out of 100.

I contend that any answer to the question of "what is fact" that allows for mutually exclusive truth claims which each entails that the other is untrue is worthless shit. I further contend that this regularly repeated error is the result of unforgiveable supidity on the part of persons who insist on analysing the concpet solely on the basis of what it is made out of and without consideration for what it does.

This offer excludes Henry, his theory is very bad, but at least he describes facts in such a way that if you assert a countrary fact you would be wrong if he is right. The others need to learn from Henry.

What a moronic gambit.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:47 pm All I see here is people trying to manufacture moral fact out of something. Looking for some special way to describe their own personal belief system as the factual one. And most importantly in my view, only thinking about what they can make moral fact out of.

But under the most rudimentary examination, it always seems to be the case that their shoddily constructed 'facts' don't do any of the work that a fact is supposed to do.

To insist that moral facts are supposed to do some work is to imply that other kinds of facts already do. Do they, really?

Facts are descriptive! Descriptive statements don't do any work.

What work does the fact that the color of this sentence is red do exactly?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:47 pm When did things that can't be used to resolve errors get to be called facts?

Who said facts are supposed to do that? You don't even understand the basic mechanics of theorizing. Let me explain it for you: if a term doesn't do any work you can drop from your hypothesis without losing anything of value.

So what work does the term "error" do in the hypothesis that facts resolve errors? What value does it add?

Moral skeptics appealing to error theories are fucking hilarious.

fact is a four letter "f" word...

-Imp